Okay no you guys were right when you were saying about how much trying to get involved in these threads is a waste of one’s time, I apologize, I’ve learned my lesson, I won’t do this again
7 Likes
You posted a meme and got countered. Try turning off tracking for the thread since you don’t want to be here.
1 Like
By bumping this thread, you engage in a dilemma. You want to see your thoughts be heard, but you engage in discussion on this thread, therefore wasting your time on this thread. I keep commenting because this thread is funny and im bored.
1 Like
How is it a counter at all even
Ignoring the second topic of the thread because honestly Edelgard discourse is too tiring for me as someone who has a personal connection to the character.
This is a good idea for a thread! Talking about common writing trappings is a good way to get discussion off the ground. To meet a middle ground though, I would recommend leaving a short tldr at the top of your future threads as it both allows you to harp on your points as long as you want and allow others to interact with the thread without feeling like they have to read too much. Because, much like Yu-Gi-Oh players, Fire Emblem players hate reading (i say this with love)
An opening crawl is what I think what a lot of new and even some experienced writers get wrong when it comes to video games, in a movie you can have an opening lore dump as there are many elements to keep you engaged and even if you’re not engaged, you are still a passive observer so it isn’t too much of a bother. With, let’s say FE4’s opening timeline crawl though, you’re not a passive observer, or at least the game comes with an expectation for you not to be. Said information is also not immediately relevant as, justifiably, the game wants you to play it after such a long crawl.
What I prefer to do and have seen done well many times before is something much shorter. The bare minimum amount of information needed, other details can be brought up as they go, save big dumps of information for when the player is invested in your story so they can take it all in.
I believe that opening infodumps are actually a sign of a more major problem. Which would be the lack of restraint when writing. This is a problem I have had in the past, and still somewhat suffer from. When you are writing, you really need to know when to cut corners, write in a way that both gets your point across succinctly but also not lacking in information that may be useful soon in the future, and this is really hard!
An exercise I try to do when particularly making FE dialogue is to write a scene, and then go back to it after the testing for that chapter is basically complete, and just take a big ol’ saw to it, cut it down as much as I can while also leaving it full of flavor, because a lot of good interaction can be lost by this method.
As a minor note opening crawls are also REALLY BAD at getting the player to remember anything about the world, what did the FE4 timeline say? I dunno, and I don’t really care because I have no reason to care until some chapters in and suddenly something comes up where I’m completely lost bc I forgot the one thing that dropped at the start of the game.
Essentially what I’m trying to say is that opening crawls both take the player out of the experience and potentially illuminates a future problem of too much embellishment, wanting to get every cool detail down immediately.
No this is not meant to a vague post about this thread, I still think this was a good idea. It just so happens that this topic has to do with wordiness and conciseness lol
Anyway I hope this project of yours goes over well, you seem to have a lot of passion behind it.
4 Likes
This is a baseless accusation, I am not personally invested in anyone’s opinion on Edelgard and arguing in favour of her or her beliefs is not my goal here. I think 3H is worse off as a story because she isn’t given a rival or enemy smart enough to make her reconsider her ideology. Dimitri violently slaughtered some powerless rebels, and then rants at Edelgard about how revolution is only good when it comes from the poor helpless powerless people, and those without power shouldn’t help because otherwise it’s immoral, but he’s totally moral because he came from nothing like a true Heir To The Throne therefore anyone can and should “come from nothing” to rise up despite all the blatant corruption he plans to do nothing about onscreen. But the ending bit says they all lived happily ever after, so I guess he always had the power to fix everything in his country Edelgard wanted to fix and just didn’t care enough until now.
Remember Senator Armstrong? Big buff guy whose true self is unknowable buried under multiple layers of politician bullshit. Strip away the “Angry American piloting a Metal Gear against you with a song about ending free will playing” persona and he’s a politician who wants the world to be a fairer more violent place where anyone can fight their own wars just like Raiden did whenever they want. He’s using war as a business to gain the power and influence to end war as a business because, as a product of The Patriots and their negative societal influence, his vision of a perfect world isn’t one of peace, but of war. War, war without control by a higher power, war without end. In a sense, doesn’t Raiden, the man who fought a long personal war for his heroic convictions, have things in common with this man who fought a long personal war for his own corrupt convictions while sacrificing countless people along the line for an ideal world where countless more will be sacrificed? You might be drawn in by his charismatic words if you don’t notice obvious contradictions (He didn’t fight and survive under his own power. He has nanomachines, son. He’s rich, he’s cheating at life, and his vision of a perfect world is one where countless weak people will be crushed by the strong. Also he’s spent all this time hiding behind the strength of others and didn’t fight you one on one face to face until he had to.).
Dimitri… It’s like if Senator Armstrong was copied poorly by a child who thought he was right, but also deeper because he is sad sometimes and angry sometimes and sometimes has a cool eyepatch. He descends into madness over an event he thinks Edelgard (who was a child test subject in chains watching her family die horribly at the time) caused and is personally responsible for, then gets over it because Kris the all-important super-special self-insert was there to lift him out of depression and madness and fix him.
Ever seen Shaun Of The Dead? The idiot thinks a pub in the middle of a town full of zombies will be a safer place than a random house in the middle of nowhere, one house of many. He’s exactly the kind of person who would think that. This is exactly the kind of awful survival plan someone like that would think of. The story doesn’t try to pretend he’s a genius when he’s actually a moron, and the story is better off for it. The character doesn’t need to make 100% perfect decisions rational by out of universe logic for the story to work, that cliche line has always just been copium for when people get mad their favourite show or favourite blorbo from their shows is having his irrationality or irrational writing critiqued. The story takes Dimitri, and has him say things that do not fit his character or backstory, in a scene trying so hard to make you feel like this is a beautiful happy ending only rendered tragic by Edelgard throwing that knife at his shoulder, carving her own path until she just couldn’t any more.
I am not personally invested in everyone saying “Edelgard did nothing wrong, let’s all hold hands sing Hail The Mighty Edelgard together”, I think this piece of fiction is worse off for not interrogating Edelgard and her values and methods harder and giving her better-written rivals and enemies with their own rational (or rational-sounding) ideas of a perfect world and their own interesting plans to create it. Dimitri isn’t interesting to me, because he’s just a dishonest politician born in an era where politicians get to stab people, in a setting where important bloodlines and inherited political power will buff your stats, written by people who think he’s the “classic lord archetype but more interesting because anger” fighting “basically Walhart but more interesting because tragic past and she calls it revolution when she inherits power then violently conquers other lands to enforce her own beliefs upon a comically pure evil ruling class who need to be stopped by force anyway”.
Authors, if you’re going to take complicated real world concepts with no easy answers and put them in your SRPG, don’t pretend the hero wins the argument in the end unless he actually does.
Whining about how in your eyes this thread is a waste of time not worth caring about doesn’t hide the fact that you clearly care enough to come here and tell all of us how you personally feel, as if we are all expected to care about you and your feelings. You see the obvious contradiction, yes? You’re not contributing to the thread’s actual point, you’re just mad it’s still going. But why should anyone care? After all, you claim you don’t. You’re not the first person to bring out this old and tired cliche but I do wish you would be the last.
Advancing science so one can simply give themselves the Crests they want, or take them away, without the need for Crest marriages and Crest babies, is a brilliant idea, but sharing this invention with the world once it is proven to work and be more than a pipe dream would threaten the established power severely. All those families who have all their hopes and futures reliant on a Crested child getting with someone from a rich and desperate Crestless family, and all those families who might be in such a situation in the future… Would they allow simply anyone to have any Crest they wanted granted or taken away? Would a noble parent allow a noble child to remove their Crest and leave the family to become a painter if that was what the child wanted, and not what the family needed? Didn’t Rhea outlaw the Printing Press out of fear that it might be misused (used against her), along with Binoculars, oil, the printing press, and autopsies? Was that in 3H or 3 Hopes? It’s been a while, but I can’t see Hanneman’s life’s work being allowed to proliferate as much as he’d like under this status quo unless things are forcefully changed for the better and quickly. He can’t put secrets that threaten the status quo online and make them open source so nobody with power could ever hope to censor them from the world.
Absolutely! That’s a more important thing to keep in mind than “Fuck opening crawls all my homies hate opening crawls”. I wish I’d added another six paragraphs to the thread’s opening post about the importance of brevity. I’m going to go and add a TLDR now.
Yes, the Fodlan situation is not going to be resolved without violence. But I kind of regard the Crest Problem and the Rhea/Thales problem as two seperate but related problems. There will be a civil war, there will need to be a civil war. And Thales & Co are gonna try to take advantage of it to Kill Everyone™, so they need to be dealt with.
This, incidentally, is a very big part of why Crimson Flower was such a disappointment, as they were largely just shoved off to the side. Leaving the story just… fucking unfinished.
Also incidentally, I imagine that as horrifying as the procedure is, their tech would be of interest to Hanneman, even if only the underlying principles of how it works would be of use, and the procedure itself would be unconscionable. How convenient! And Lysithea could probably point Hanneman towards them in Edelgard’s stead. Raid Shambala for it’s tech and take out it’s power structure along the way, we’ll see what we can do for it’s civilians when we get there. Insiders and deserters might make that bit easier, or we’ll just be seen as some “Other” who rolled up and ruined everything again. Wow, I really like FFXIV.
This leaves Rhea. She’ll, Probably make herself a problem. Byleth could maybe possibly leverage the whole Enlightened One thing to cause a schism? Which would just be Lonato 2, now that I think of it, Ashe get over here. Or things could just turn out they way the did in Verdant Wind but that’s such a cop-out. Or Rhea could just Fucking Listen To Seteth For Once In Her Life.
TL;DR: Yeah so upend the current status quo.
1 Like
Longposting, will compress later
First we should underline how each “”“revolt”“” comes from different scenarios.
By one side, Dimitri’s “revolt” comes from being framed for the death of the current regent - Cornelia’s plot to allow Faerghus to be assimilated into the empire - and forced to go absent. (Not just that, but it is clearly shown that he ends up barely sane - even disagreeing with plans that would further these “revolutionary” agendas).
We must then take a note on that Dimitri’s only motivation at this point is merely killing the shit out of Edelgard - with other characters trying to steer this impulse towards a revolution/‘rightful reclamation’.
Gilbert: “We need the legitimate heir of Faerghus to overthrow the Empire and reclaim the Kingdom!”
Rodrigues: “The tyranny is unbearable, and so the rebellions are endless. Refugees starve to death on the streets.”
Additionally, there are lines that hint that rather than this being “Dimitri’s Revolution”, this is first and foremost Faerghus’ Civil War, with multiple houses having sided against Cornelia (and many others on her side).
For what people translating this specific quote are mentioning though - some say that it is horribly localized, for what I would want to - before continuing discussion on this specific point, to read and have available the original JP readings, as even one small segment changes heavily both how this reads and what it actually stands for.
Average Localization Mess
Edelgard (JP): Even if it is self-righteousness, someone must rise up. In order to put an end to this blood-stained history.
Edelgard (EN): Maybe it is self-righteousness, but it doesn’t matter. Someone has to take action and put a stop to this world’s endless, blood-stained history!
Dimitri (JP): . . . You do not believe in it at all, do you? Taking each others’ hands and rising up . . . the strength of people [to do that]. People are weak creatures. But, they are also creatures who, through helping each other and supporting each other, can choose the correct path. . . . People can live that way too—I learned that from the professor . . . and everyone else.
Dimitri (EN): Do you not believe in the power of people to join together and rise up? Humans are weak creatures. But they are also creatures who help each other, support each other, and together, find the right path. I have learned that humans are capable of all that from the professor…and from everyone in my life.
(Also, adding the previous Edelgard blorb to this adds context to it - Dimitri questions if Edelgard doesn’t believe in the people as she believes that only she can rise up)
And did the Alliance and the Kingdom of Faerghus, which also get invaded by her in AM consent to the cost of rebellion? As stated by Dimitri beforehand, here he is asking if there wasn’t any other choice, any other solution - to which we highlight how Edelgard was isolated as mentioned by other people - that she was made out to believe that there was no other choice.
Edelgard is overthrowing or attempting to overthrow Rhea, don’t forget about that (as well as take down the current status quo completely) - this is the “imposing her beliefs onto others” segment. You’re upholding the beliefs and experiences of one single high school class as the basis that everyone has the same will to revolt, which can easily be not true.
Using it on behalf of those who lack power could arguably be called “Democracy” - but Edelgard’s execution is more akin to an “Enlightened Monarch”: those who rule for the people without the people.
But the larger point here in this segment (beyond remarking that Dimitri’s “”“revolution”“” (which it isn’t) is born of the people themselves and their poor conditions on one side) is
~that localizers are so ass~
Dimitri’s argument here (even though it comes with its own flaws) is not that ‘revolutions by the people are A-OK!’.
Is that the people eventually will find the right path on their own together, given some time (two things which Edelgard does not have). This can lead to a revolution, yes, but it can also lead to other events - to bring light to other needs. This isn’t excluding any groups, nor anyone - it takes everyone as a consensus.
And on this point, she may not be alone - but she does feel that she is alone on this. Some lines of hers do always connect to the Professors’ absence or lack of it (based on route), that if it wasn’t for the professor, she’d have no one to rely on (how much of this is just giving the player some service is to be debated) - and that this arguably is “the saving grace.”
Who by the way became a wandering, fugitive homeless for five years after being framed for murder - being reduced to a one-track murder machine?
Who also probably isn’t aware, unlike the player post-other routes that she was experimented upon?
Maybe he can call her privileged from his point of view, as all he sees is someone who not only has he harbored a massive resentment and hatred towards and has no idea of the “oh woe so tragic” background.
Maybe he can make moral judgements (with the privilege or the lack of it) for the good of “people” just as Edelgard does (all of these coming with their own inner flaws), and maybe each of these lead to different endings, perspectives, and executions.
Does that mean that commoners should always be subservient and never try to confront or consider themselves before taking action? Does this mean that only the magically-gifted super-nobles have the ability to give their trade checkmark to any revolution or want they have lest they themselves squash these civilians themselves?
You’ll understand that this is severely limiting - as well as only allowing power and change to those who are already at the arguable top (nobility mostly).
Which is where I say.
He never stood for this. He never painted himself as an example as this “receptacle of the common folk’s spirit”. That’s a massive misread.
gets emotionally invested in moral arguments about ficticious characters
Should she be given one? Would the story be better off if she was just talk-no-jutsu’d out of her ways - the ways that she believes is right? The threats that only she knows?
All in all, I’m left to believe that you’ve no idea whatsoever of what Dimitri’s character is even meant to be, taking it as a “Hero’s Journey of Zero to Hero” instead of “Revenge is not a healthy boner” or any other conclusion taken from one single character trait.
Holy shit Rodrigues on a ditch turning after he himself on his deathbed is the one to make Dimitri take notice of what he has been doing all along.
The fact that it takes for Rodrigues to die in his arms as a byproduct of his lust for vengeance to finally click that vengeance is not the answer should pretty much tell you about why it doesn’t happen at any other route - it’s not because of the Professor taking his side, even if that does still play a small role.
Dimitri isnt shown what vengeance does to other people - he isn’t a direct victim of it, in a way - until it literally comes knocking on his door. Being a victim to his own actions (Rodrigues’ death and his pre-mortem forgiveness) is what makes him see the wrong in vengeance.
I whine about you posting because I know from the start that this isn’t a thread about Everyone’s writing thread, but a you thread where you just rant and rant on.
My problem isn’t you ranting, my problem is you making false publicity or having this history of making threads crafted to put people on a battlefield.
Also, what the fuck are you even talking about.
What even is the thread’s actual point?
Where at which point have people come here with their own writing here to submit things and have them reviewed, or commented on, or ANYTHING? This is a thread for your writing discussion, not everyone and anyone’s.
Also, just to keep you on track, it wasn’t the thread what I called a waste of time in specific.
4 Likes
Senator Armstrong mentioned, this is a good thing jump into.
As memetic as our dear senator is, his writing works because it is based on the “moral concept” that “Might makes right”, which can considered a corruption of the naive idea of “the good guys always win”.
And this moral guideline for an antagonist works as base, because whatever end goal you build on top of it will be internally justified, and when they lose against the protagonist, they also lose on their own morals… because by losing to someone, they are proven to be weak and therefore wrong.
You can also add flavors of “might” to this trope, is economic power a valid kind of might? Is the might we value physical strenght, intelligence or just the ability to come on top by whatever means possible?
You can make different character focus on different interpretations of that. All while having a protagonist that believes that there is a right or wrong that is independant of your strenght to enforce it… yet, has to rise and play the “win by strenght” game, because he is not going to talk his way out with people that by the end will fall into “When I beat you, I’ll prove you I’m right, so shut up and face me”
4 Likes
But Might would still make Right here - regardless of whether Senator Armstrong wins or loses - “Right” still comes to fruition. It’s not as much of a “When I beat you, I’ll prove you I’m right” but a “If your ideals are the right ones - if you truly are strong, then you’ll beat me.”
This is further shown on his boss fight with not only his mantle-pass (which Raiden takes, as he references the Senator’s lines on post-credits) upon his death (“We both are kindred spirits, you… and I”), but on many other lines beforehand.
Though, to the concepts of different types of might - that’s a good angle that one could develop from - with even displays of how battles are won/conflicts are solved beyond just pure individual strength.
I should have been more clear, I meant to say they are proven their goals were wrong, not their morality. That in case of a fight that is not to the death, opens the door for them to follow the protagonist goals.
4 Likes
we should rename the thread to writing thread- sike it’s 3houses discussions again lmao
3 Likes
It’s kinda both by now, there are now people talking about Armstrong and how he’s written and what lessons can be taken away from that from a writing standpoint… ish…
First, please do not quote my post saying “If this thread is a waste of time to you” so it looks like I said “This thread is a waste of time”. What’s next, quoting my post out of context so it sounds like I said I think Coolsville sucks?
Second, coming into a thread to cry about it makes this all about you, it’s a dishonest ploy for attention and nothing more. Doesn’t matter if you swear “I don’t care! I don’t care! That’s why I came here again to tell everyone how much I don’t care! I expect you all to care about how much I don’t care!”. Doesn’t matter if you swear “You’re the villain here acting in bad faith, not me!”. I don’t care what you accuse me of, you’re coming into a thread you don’t like because you’re upset and you’re trying to turn it into your thread all about you and your opinions and your ego and your feelings. You clearly care a lot about how people perceive you, but if you want people to respect you so badly, trying so hard to start petty internet drama isn’t the way. Get good at something of value and put effort into improving at it.
I know trying to start another neverending argument about 3H is just bait. But for the sake of finality…
Dimitri’s “righteous quest” to violently secure his position in a corrupt hierarchy he believes to be his by birthright did not emotionally move me. Dimitri’s baseless hysterical accusations against Edelgard did not win him the anti-extremism debate in the end because it’s only “extremism” when those with power say it is. First he claims extremism is bad, then he claims extremism is only valid when it solely comes from the lower class without any help from anyone from the upper class… Are you seeing what I see? So what if she’s a monarch who believes in reducing the excessive power of the corrupt aristocracy and uplifting the working class? No law says monarchs can’t be correct for a change. Who died and crowned him the highest moral authority in the land? For Dimitri to claim Edelgard sucks for thinking nobody can rise up except her is pointless. It’s a pointless, meaningless angle of attack. It’s a baseless accusation. Her army is full of people who rose up even if it “didn’t count” when she rose up from tortured experiment and child of an emperor in name only to actual empress. So what if she did believe only she has what it takes to rise up and force the world into a better place, putting an end to those who get away with using force to keep the world where it is?
No, Faeghus did not consent to being invaded by Edelgard, and she decided to make her job (overthrow the Church’s influence on her country, spread reforms, slay Those Who Slither) harder by invading neutral countries and seeking to conquer them. You could say your headcanoned excuse for this contrived writing is “She doesn’t trust anyone enough to reach out and risk having her plans foiled, even with Byleth’s aid and thought these countries would violently oppose her plans anyway, and maybe she’s going to die anyway soon and wants to see a better world before she kicks the bucket” but once again the authors are trying to force her to play the role of the villain in Dimitri and Claude and Rhea’s stories. Bonds are just so important, guys, especially the bond with Byleth, the all-important Divine Dragon. People laughed when Kris was glazed, but people have grown numb to it.
Edelgard is violently overthrowing the government that allowed the worst people with political power to violate the human rights of the innocent, risking her life and all she has to do so. To smear that as “imposing her beliefs on others” seems absurd to me. Are you really going to tell me nobody with power under the old status quo imposed their beliefs on others? Are you really going to tell me if we have a problem with what was done by Rhea, or Bernadetta’s father, or that guy who wanted to take Ingrid by force, or what might be done by any noble like that in the future, anyone who seeks to put a stop to such evil is “imposing their beliefs on others”?
Does anything really make a revolution magically more special if it comes from the downtrodden and powerless without any aid from anyone above them? Dimitri didn’t seem to think so when he executed those powerless rebels. No pro-humanity consensus will ever include those who benefit from the anti-humanity status quo and those incurably under their influence. Three Houses
As for Dimitri’s ignorance towards Edelgard’s backstory, 3 Houses writing strikes again. He makes these assumptions and she is not allowed to reply truthfully because revealing such tragedy would make first-time players feel like they backed the wrong side. To reveal his grudge against Edelgard was stupid would make the player feel uncomfortable. And the player can’t ever feel uncomfortable, not even when siding with the villains, so the authors have to make sure Corrin’s hands are squeaky clean and nothing that compromises the narrative where Dimitri is the hero is revealed.
But fundamentally, none of this matters. And not just because this is fiction and debates over the morality of fictitious characters are inherently pointless.
Even if Edelgard was completely wrong during every other scene, this scene would still be dishonestly written and it would be correct to say in the writing thread to people actually here for the writing thread “Don’t lie to the audience like this”.
In this scene the authors are trying to paint Edelgard as a villain who lacks the strength of reaching out to others and Dimitri as a hero with the strength of reaching out to others even though it was Byleth arbitrarily picking his house that made all of this happen, not some big important moment where Dimitri choosing forgiveness and reaching out over vengeance gave his force allies who saved him during dire moments. You know, like what would happen in a good story that really wants to say mercy is better than vengeance and take that message seriously. Grow from the past and learn from it and change, guys, don’t be like Rhea obsessed with the past. But don’t rise up and wage wars to change the world, that’s bad and you should just tolerate the unjust rule of those in control of the status quo, otherwise you’ll be bad like the villain Edelgard who invaded countries which was bad, even though she did it for a good reason: Getting the power to do what other house lords probably could have done to their own countries eventually if they tried hard enough and had Byleth’s help and everyone in the way was conveniently dead. What a story. One of the stories of all time. I can see why you’re so emotionally invested in how people see and talk about your favourite character. Attacking me for not loving Dimitri won’t change what writers can learn from this failure of a scene.
This scene… This is Dimitri’s triumphant moment where he kills Edelgard when she has nothing left. He has to say she lost because she was wrong about something important, he has to ascribe moral significance to this, but the authors can’t think of anything legitimate. Do you remember that scene where Edelgard murdered her own troops who were tired of fighting and wished to return home and didn’t care what Nobles did to kids in Fartgas or the Worcestershire Alliance and only joined the army because they wanted to do something about the excessive power of the corrupt nobility in their own country? Neither do I. Do you remember that scene where Edelgard burned countless innocent men, women, and children alive in Dimitri’s capital city because she lost someone close to her during a war and got mad? Neither do I.
It worked with Walhart, when most of his overwhelming force forced to fight for him was self-interested, so they were reluctant to pursue the protagonists into that volcano, and when Walhart was defeated once they stopped fearing and serving him. Walhart was a villain who wished to unite the world through force and fear to prevent Grima’s rise, trying to violently conquer and enslave Chrom’s country instead of teaming up with it to take down Validar first because he felt like it. Chrom didn’t do the bad thing, he did the good thing, so he wins, and he gets the big moment where he says “I won because I was moral” to the guy who believes might makes right.
But Edelgard is not “Walhart but slightly more sympathetic” and Dimitri is not “Chrom but darker and edgier”. Dimitri’s quest to keep his role in his power structure, in a story so critical of power structures… Writing it this way is certainly one of the choices of all time, but I’m tired of talking about it and won’t reply to further bickering about what someone thinks the “correct” interpretation of 3H is. Yeah, it’s written dumb, but they did their best. Smart writers learn from their mistakes, wise writers learn from the mistakes of others.
Does anyone here have any other writing advice they would like to give, whether it involves Fire Emblem or hacks/fangames or anything else?
I’d say…
Establish the emotional core of the story early on.
It’s not necessarily the hook that draws people in. Things need to be connected to the emotional core so we can care.
Leia sees a planet get blown up in Star Wars. Oh no, it was a nice-looking planet. Obi Wan sure cares a lot. Look at him feel it from so far away. Damn. These two characters we barely know anything about sure are feeling something.
Remember when the baddies killed your mom basically right after you met her in Fire Emblem Fates and Engage? Damn. Look at all those characters go, being all sad. The mom’s death in Engage would have been the perfect place to make the amnesiac protagonist mirror the audience, who feels “Oh no, a stranger died” and not “NOOOO THEY KILLED MY MOMMA!”. He could feel bad about being the only one not crying. He could feel bad about her asking, with her dying wish, to hold him. Maybe he could lie and say he remembers her, he remembers everything, so she can die happily. Maybe she could die telling him to be true to himself. Maybe later when we know more about her and she shows up again and dies a second time in the past or dies as a Corrupted or dies in an alternate timeline or whatever the excuse is, he could cry for real that time. Nope, she has to INFODUMP FOR WHAT FEELS LIKE THE WORLD’S LONGEST DEATH SCENE.
Remember when the baddies destroyed Sector 7 in Final Fantasy 7? Those bastards! That’s a place you’re familiar with, and a place you cared about! It’s your home! You know enough about it to know it’s evil for the villains to do something so destructive to their own city, and it shows the villains don’t care how many innocent people they hurt trying to get the heroes. And they don’t even get the heroes anyway!
They made prequels about that planet in Star Wars because they knew we should have been made to care, at least a little, about the people before we saw what happened to the place.
When Luke finds out The Empire killed Owen and Beru it affects him, and we care because we care about him far more than we care about Owen and Beru, but if we never met any of these characters, they would just be faces in the background and their home would just be a place somewhere.
What if Owen and Beru mentioned Luke’s cooler adopted brother who just got a job on that planet, the one that got destroyed? And then, boom. Feels. Probably. No, we’d need a scene or two of Luke interacting with him first. Let’s make the brother a supporter of the Empire for bonus irony points. The Empire is willing to blow up a planet their biggest fan just got a job on, because rebellion is good and The Empire is bad and not loyal to its subjects.
Writers, if you want people to care about what happens to people and places, connect it to people the audience cares about.
what the fuck is coolsville
what the fuck are you even talking about
Isn’t Coolsville where Scooby-Doo is set?
“Hey, my name is Kem and I think Coolsville sucks!”
It’s just a meme saying, I dunno where it’s from (was it Scooby-Doo?). Right here, it’s being used as something that’s impossible to take out of context so no one can even try to do so. That’s all.
I was actually thinking about this somewhat recently. I’m the type of bird who takes a story at face value by default, so I don’t typically have an issue getting invested when death is used early on in a story. Or perhaps it’s not that it gets me invested, but rather I simply don’t question those things. A whole planet’s destroyed? Dang, this guy’s evil. This character’s mother died? Even if I don’t know who anyone is, I know that’s sad. It’s rarely something I even think about when it happens.
After all my thinking about it in the past, I can only really say it comes down to the kind of person one is. There are plenty of people who aren’t phased by a story until an emotional connection is successfully linked; it’s a complaint I’ve heard many times before. For some reason, I’m not one of those people. Though, I do know it does need to be considered to a degree when writing a story. It definitely would be weird to start immediately with a character death (unless you really got a plan).
1 Like
I’m going to be honest I have absolute no idea what prompted him to say that
Like I’m reading both messages back and I have no idea on why “grrrr why you quoting like I said this thread sucks” is a thing
Like all I get is that again and again Jason just isn’t reading or picking up clues whatsoever
and I still don’t know who the hell these “defenseless rebels” are
the ones that framed him for the death of the ruler of faerghus? the ones who made him a vagabond? defenseless with an army? who the hell is Jason even talking about
Like even if you’re mentioned what fundamentally happens in the plot anyways you’re still going to ignore what you’re being mentioned as if there only was one exact single right interpretation and it was yours
its not even triumphant
what 3H’s game did you bootleg out of a download link
in what world is “I gave my ex-childhood friend the gift I gave them once long ago, they stabbed me with it and I killed them by reflex” a “”“triumphant scene”“”
the entire scene wasnt about a triumphant declaration of victory, it was an attempt at trust - which ends with Edelgard’s death
like at this point I dont even know if you’ve actually played, experienced or even watched a video of a playthrough to get a semblant of an idea on the game
Hear me out on this though. Maybe you weren’t meant to feel pity for that planet. Maybe you weren’t meant to go “oh no so many lives have gone out in a puff of smoke I’m so sad”
maybe the intention of that scene was showing the power of the death star
just like sometimes you’ll have scenes of big baddies throwing a critical strike at a green unit for presentation? you aren’t meant to feel sad about that green unit, neither about that planet, and neither are the emotional core of Star Wars
you’re meant to see that as a threat if anything
maybe not everything is meant to emotionally punch people in order for them to “”“care”“”
maybe not everything that you build a connection to is meant to be destroyed later simply so that the people are made to “care” and feel bad about it
maybe things, characters and places can be something more than a device to guilt the viewer and give character growth through suffering to one individual
2 Likes
what the fuck are you yapping about jason, can you have the balls to tell me what the fuck this is about. Dont expect a clear and concise answer, Jason. I think that textwalling your opponnents and going “nanana” with not answering is kind of a cliche, or carteblanche or any sort of descriptive word to describe bad social faux pas… Look, i think you need to have a deep look at yourself and see what you are doing. Sorry i cant be a fucking god at writing and my points were not communicated correctly, but thats small peas compared to what you write about topics… Look, i dont want to paint you as a villan. See you, probally, maybe no. I have hope that you can change or some crap like that. What the fuck am i saying? Bye.
cmon you’re just being a twerp wii lol