So after reading Matt’s topic, I thought about it and realized that FEU doesn’t really have a general ‘share your spare concepts’ thread. I mean, the average person working on a single hack or project generally has not a lot of time and lots of ideas. Who knows, maybe if you share it someone else will take up the slack? At the least it might spur some creativity?
Anyway, just a throwaway idea I had. The game would have two protagonists, and each chapter swaps back and forth between their views. As you play it, you find out that the protagonists are actually sworn enemies on opposite sides in a war. Each side has its own unique units, neither obtainable by the others. At the end of the game you have to make a choice, and that choice determines who you play as for the last five chapters.
The important thing though isn’t so much the gimmick of character swapping. What needs to be done is take the time to explain each one’s motivations, without reducing one side to COMICAL STEREOTYPE VILLAIN while another is CLEARLY GOOD GUY SUPERHERO. They each must have clear motivations, and the player must feel like it’s a no win situation. This mimics reality, where the winner always demonizes the loser in a war, but in reality both had their own motivations for fighting. Yes, rebels might be fighting a corrupt government, but perhaps the leader of said government is quashing the rebellion because the people in general have shown they don’t really mind the current system, even if it is unfair in many ways.
You could get pretty in depth politically in the game and tell lots of messages. It’s actually a game I’d love to work on but damn, it’s a good 5-10 years away if I’m even that lucky. So yeah, any other ideas people wanna share?
P.S. Primefusion’s TRTR actually has a fairly close approximation of this, though in the end the characters in the second route join forces with you so it’s not exact.
@klokinator: The chapter switching sounds like a neat idea, and i don’t mind a hack with a more grey like morality, cause black and white is so clear cut and boring, but im not so behind the idea of no win situation, as there’s always a purpose in war, and there’s always objectives to be had, even if the final prize isn’t worth the final cost. I mean just saying “war is meaningless” gets pretty meaningless after awhile itself, and i think that saying war is meaningless is suger coating the concept of war itself, war always has a meaning, it is a reactionary event, and often times the reasoning seems pointless, frivolous, childish, and all those other things, but it is still meaning. If anything i would suggest using this idea to explore why wars happen, why they can drag out for so long, why people get into that ‘us or them’ mindset cough nationalism cough, and the tragedy in those events. but really those are just my thoughts. I will clarify that i think its a good idea, its just little things that bug me about it is all. Good idea for a tragedy i might add.
@dondon151: I would so love an fe1 prequel. if you ever get the motivation/desire to work on it, i would love to help. either way im behind that idea.
suppose i should voice an idea of my own then huh. . .
eh all i really wanna see is a fire emblem tragedy (with all the elements of tragedy in it), ya know tragic hero with a tragic flaw, tragic event happens (most usually in the past) that leads to the downfall of the tragic hero due to his tragic flaw, chaos happens, people usually die, tragic hero realizes he is at fault, ends with the death of the tragic hero, and balance is restored, but the way for more (and usually similar) tragedy is left open. ya know stuff like that story wise.
No, my point wasn’t “It’s a no win situation because war is meaningless”, rather “It’s a no win situation because if written correctly you’ll like both characters and their armies and you’ll have to kill one or the other off, meaning you don’t win either way.”
In war, good men die on both sides. Many have families at home, they want to return to raise their children, etc. When you meet characters you love and then you eventually have to kill them off, it sends the message that every war has a loser, and the loser is not always a terrible person like the winner often makes them out to be.
r u trollin
Comedy hacks aren’t that great. Well written hacks with clever comedy here and there however, those are great. Comedy hacks usually end up trying too hard to be funny and then fall flat more than they actually hit with the jokes.
Yes, but on average, most people just really aren’t that funny either
Another idea I had was a game based on The Odyssey, where you play as Ulysses sailing the ocean and meeting all sorts of interesting characters, including various gods living on Earth, the fight with the Cyclops where Ulysses puts out his eye, the sirens and their songs, and so on and so forth. It’s kind of a dumb idea and I doubt it would even work in a Fire Emblem setting, but if anyone could do it it’d be Ghast since he has so many medieval creatures in Bloodlines taken straight out of mythology.
i guess i should clarify and say that when i said balance, i more emant order, in that everything is pretty much the same as before, for instance in most things its evil king gets his just deserts from hero who becomes king and rules peacefully, and brings great prosperity and all that. in tragedy its pretty okay king is killed, hero rules but fucks up a lot, and then hero is taken off the throne (usually killed) and some other dude is placed as pretty okay king. scenarios like that, though the tragedy im talking about is more a text book definition, cause interpretation and all that.
In general one could say that in a classic tragedy the tragic hero (or protagonist if you will) will be an upstanding guy (someone the audience aspires to normally) but he or she has this one less then ideal thing about them (which can be good or bad in any given scenario) which just happens to cause everything to go to hell, lots of people die both ones you want to die and those you don’t want to die, the tragic hero is usually killed by his foil, but not usually before the tragic hero realizes he fucked up royally, and everything is pretty much the same as it was before sans tragic hero and everybody else who died.
i feel thats kinda painting a broad brush on the whole concept, but i wont go there and simply say “no shit sherlock, that’s bloody obvious.” its a fine starting point but i feel if ya wanna go that direction ya gotta dig deeper.