#Story and Gameplay Integration

[emblemxeno]

If we're being honest, I got a lot of issues with Ingrid because I feel like she has the wrong character development

Her support with Dedue is realizing that she shouldn't apply her negative view of Duscur onto every Duscurian indiscriminately

That kind of thing works for Oboro because Nohrians really did kill her parents

But, Duscurians didn't actually cause the death of Lambert or Glenn, so her development should've been to learn that all those years of hatred were misdirected, and she hated them for no reason

It also didn't help that Dimitri states multiple times that Duscur didn't commit the crime, and Ingrid is still ignorant about it

I have this unhinged hatred of the Faerghus Four as a concept because every time, it's like they're consciously refusing to acknowledge the importance of Dedue in Dimitri's life in the present "Oh, these are Dimitri's childhood friends. Of course, they're close." Yeah, sure.... They're totally closer to Dimitri than Dedue is in the present.... *Internal screaming*

Combining these because my answer to both is similar!

In my opinion, it showcases how 3H's writing philosophy is ultimately shoddy in its foundation. The backstories, supports, and character-to-character dialogue itself is great in theory, but execution it clashed with what both FE usually tries to do and what 3H desperately wants to do.

FE typically has characters join chapter to chapter, with important ones having plot moments, while side characters fall to the background once their designated chapter is up. But this isn't at the cost of character interaction, pre-established relationships, and the micro-to-macro worldbuilding precisely because they're not overly important. You can have canon romances, friendships, familial relationships, etc. because that's all supplemental side material.

3H was written in a way in which the characters were all connected to its grandiose world, to the point where Fodlan itself can be almost considered a character. Multilayered backstories that infer key points in the narrative, each character no matter how trivial having opinions on how the world works, shifting dynamics, etc.

The problem though is that these two philosophies clash already at base, but also run into the problem of FE's gameplay integrated story elements.

None of the Faerghus Four can meaningfully comment on their relationship with Dimitri during a story cutscene because they can die. Ingrid can't meaningfully change her perspective on Dedue or Duscur beyond her supports because she can die. Therefore, all you get are (admittedly pretty good) supports, the monastery dialogue, and other tidbits intentionally disconnected from one another so as not to be important enough to write around potential death. The comments they do get in cutscenes were intentionally written in a way to be surface level and easily replaced. Look at the FEdatamine site for example, where conclusions are reached by Byleth, the lord, the unkillable retainer, and other important story figures, with numerous possible instances of "if X character is alive they comment this, but if X character is dead this line is skipped."

That is proof of how sloppy 3H's writing is in foundation when you think about it long enough. The game that has such an intricate world, thorough details, and fascinating story beats, is actually extremely bad at delivering a story, especially an FE story. Being the judgmental and petty cunt that I am, 3H gets a pass most of the time a) most don't care or bother to care about actual stuff like this and b) the game has the aesthetics of being a down to earth, gritty, serious narrative. The foundational issues don't matter when you have Edelgard yapping about "THE CREST SYSTEM", dark character circumstances, and intriguing mysteries to solve in part 1.

People want the appearance of sophistication, especially after Awakening and Fates bent a lot of rules to fuck around with their respective stories. It's why Engage, despite not having nearly as many basic issues at conveying its plot and is actually extremely good at being a Fire Emblem story (e.g. more character being able to actually die, pre-established relationships, chapter to chapter joining, not nearly as much centering on Alear as the ultimate decider on a character's fate compared to Byleth), is panned because... why? Its bright aesthetic? Its good dragon vs evil dragon plot? Its softer or humorous moments?

Hell, even its call backs to past FE games is called cheap, soulless, or a gateway to gacha (one video I saw even described it as something like "when art becomes obligation" or some such nonsense), despite it LITERALLY being the prime anniversary title. The main character is the Fire Emblem, and the writers-through Lumera-wish a happy birthday to Fire Emblem!!! What about that is lacking heart and soul?

But yeah, again, I preface that I'm a judgmental asshole who proudly proclaims that the audience (at least the western one) has for years been too obsessed with yearning for darker serious aesthetics of FE's past (despite said past being wackier than they remember), that when a new game has them in overflowing spades, the many fundamental video game writing issues do not matter as much anymore.

Aesop for the day: Serious tones and aesthetics are not automatically better than lighter, heartfelt, or funny ones. You still have to write well for a story to be good.

EDIT: Funny enough this is also why Three Hopes is a more comfy environment for the Fodlan cast's in terms of tangible development, because the things the writers want to do with that game's story complements its gameplay. Because KT is better at making Warriors plots than FE plots.

[vastly-fixated-devotee-667]

refusing to give this even a single note but can someone tell me what on earth this person is on about 💀

[presiding]

a doctor turned serial killer turned doctor again, an actor who paints, a gang leader, a mining baron, and a vice overseer walk into the room.

oh yeah and they lead karnaca now.

dishonored 2 is my fav game but i think it's mid, story-wise. here's why dh1 works and why dh2's overarching story sorta misses

tl;dr: story integration is critical for gameplay that offers audience payoff, but emily's personal arc from dishonor to honor is inconsistently demonstrated in the story, and is not an interactive part of the gameplay.

essay/long version under cut >

recap: what's dishonored's deal

[skip if you want] dh1 is an underdog story: corvo is an honorable man swept up in the machinations of a callous city, so his canonical ending being 'this child will rule over an empire' isn't about the child's rule but rather about corvo's reputation being restored in a more hopeful city, due to his & the player's rejection of the violent connotations of the tagline 'revenge solves everything.'

similarly, in dh1 DLCs, daud's story arc is that of an anti-hero: a dishonorable man who realises too late he has done irreparable harm. he sees the error of his ways after a single monumental death, and eventually a single life redeems him when he/the player stepped in to circumvent a terrible fate for a child, enabling her to rule unfettered.

daud & corvo come to a satisfying conclusion within the extent of their narrative arcs. it doesn't matter that a child on a throne isn't really a fix for a decaying empire - the player's actions throughout the city of dunwall was what mattered - and these stories could be framed as parables. in that sense, young emily as a ruler is a metaphor for a hopeful future for the city & empire.

dishonored 1 & its DLCs are also great examples of storytelling with perfectly integrated gameplay - you, the player, worked towards the outcome that redeemed the protagonists.

in your efforts to save young emily, you either achieved a good outcome (corvo) or prevented a worse outcome (daud).

bringing us to dh2 -

what's emily's arc

emily's arc is a coming of age: we're introduced to a reigning empress who questions her role & skillset ("am i the empress my mother wanted me to be?"), then her titular fall from grace occurs. from there, she learns to reject the violent, selfish connotations in 'take back whats yours' tagline (a la daud & corvo!) while rediscovering why her rule is critical to the empire.

emily's rule is no longer metaphorical, but:

a literal thing for audience assessment (is emily a good ruler?) AND

the crux of her storyline.

at the beginning of dh2, emily is introduced as a disengaged leader ("i wish i could just run away from all this;" "i dont know if whether i should sail to the opposite side of the world, or have everyone around me executed"). the antihero has a precedent for the dishonored series in daud, so it's not at first glance an issue*, however, the fact that emily has ruled poorly reframes corvo & daud's endings as being less than ideal (a moralistic retcon) *we could talk here about how ready an audience was in 2016 for a flawed women as a protagonist, hell, even in 2023,,,

throwback to the beginning of this essay when i said:

'this child will rule over an empire' isn't about the child's rule but rather about corvo's reputation

emily's story arc, unlike for daud & corvo, is literally about the quality of her rule. we're no longer in metaphor territory (ironic phrase): a parable-style ending doesn't work.

does emily become a good ruler

we know she becomes a good ruler because the game says so. it is narrated to the audience via a (literal) word of god in the space of 30 seconds, after the final boss. the outsider tells us that emily becomes known as Just & Clever.

drawing a distinction here - this narration is not the same as the player actively being involved.

the player does not throughout the game become aware that emily has made political allies. during the game, she doesn't talk to these characters about saving karnaca or being a better ruler to the empire (there's a few lines might imply it, but you need to be actively looking and being careful to wait for every voice line. it's a far cry from daud & corvo's fight to save emily being unmissable - even though daud doesn't know at the beginning that's the goal).

how does the game show it

you can coincidentally not kill most of your subjects and never be aware that emily is looking to restore karnaca by means of instating a council - it's never brought up. it *couldn't* be brought up, because that council serves under the fake duke (armando), who is the last person she speaks to before she leaves for dunwall. its her suggestion that he rules karnaca, but armando's condition is that he will rule as he sees fit.

to back up a bit, emily's canonical method of restoring karnaca is by banding together key allies - hypatia, stilton, [byrne &or paolo], pastor, under a council beneath the duke's body double. they are passionate people who would each individually make worthwhile advisors, but if you think about those characters sitting at a table trying to reach an agreement, it feels like an assortment of people that emily didn't kill along the way and doesn't feel organic (up to interpretation). it's not stated if emily herself banded this council together, but logically she must have (worth a mention these are mostly characters that you as the player had reasonable rationale to kill during a high chaos run, except pastor). the underlying concept may be that karnaca's power is returned to its people - which is interesting given that the monarchy remains and armando's decision is final.

this overarching solution could also be taken as a critique to dh1's 'put your kid on the throne,' which is another reason its worthwhile looking at how emily was shown to be a better leader. obviously my point isn't that her solution was bad given the circumstance, but i mean she has very little agency here in all. if emily was shown to be more controlling as a leader, this could be interpreted as character growth, but that's not the case.

coming of age

how do you learn & grow when you can't specify your failings? emily doesn't really touch on her shortcomings as an empress. she non-specifically worries delilah makes a better empress than her. it's hard to argue her worries are meaningful when someone good at their job will still worry when lives are in the balance.

emily's best 'aha' moments (eg. crack in the slab comment about gaining perspective) are consistently undercut by a conversation with sokolov or meagan afterwards in which she demonstrates she hasn't learned anything (before the grand palace, emily condemns 'toadies sucking up to me' and is reminded by meagan that she's part of the problem). the story is confused about what it's trying to say about emily's progress, and when she's meant to show progress, if she was meant to show any progress at all. it could be argued that emily was never even a bad ruler, she had just been fed misinformation about the problems in karnaca and been the victim of slander by her political enemies. the game doesn't make this clear - it's easier to argue that the opposite is true given that her allies only have criticism.

worth a mention here that the heart quotes about armando - a fake ruler - interestingly mirror emily's character concerns. "see how he sighs? his life is a gilded cage." but this essay is already long.

while corvo & daud spend their games (and through the gameplay) 'earning' their redemption, emily is being led by the NPCs around her to a conclusion and a fix for the political mess in karnaca: meagan & sokolov guide emily to her missions, and there's no recurring quest for emily to investigate possible allies. she is able to gather the people she hasn't killed to herself by manner of... post-game narration. during the game, she's primarily concerned with getting her throne back.

an easy fix: if there had been less dialogue & narrative focus on emily's failings perhaps the ending would have felt more satisfying. it has the feel of cut content, but i don't know what was cut to be able to comment on it.

so what went wrong?

i can't help but wonder if arkane were worried they would lose a certain demographic if corvo wasn't playable (may have been deemed too much of a risk - 2013 was a different time), and so they had to take out story elements that were unique to emily's growth as a character/empress, because the usual storyline/gameplay integration had to work for both characters - in other words, gameplay that made sense for both corvo & emily was prioritised before emily's story & character development. which is a silly problem to have in a game that added character voices for the sake of improving characterisation - maybe emily's tale would have felt more akin to a parable if she had less lines that betrayed her ignorance (to the disdain of those around her).

i wish more care had been taken with emily's story. most players will never really notice the large variety of different endings - they're not particularly satisfying in and of themselves.

it's ironic that one of Emily's complaints is about her father/protector being overbearing, when his (parallel universe) presence in the gameplay may be one of the reasons her own narrative arc falls flat.

what are the upsides here

changing tune from what didn't work - don't you think the concept is fantastic? it's a great idea overall - can you imagine if the coming of age storyline was better integrated into the game?

it's valuable to talk about the integration of story and gameplay and characterisation from a craft perspective. dh2 genuinely is my favourite game - it's beautiful, the imm-sim design philosophy makes the world a delight to explore, the combat gives endless creative options for tackling any fight, there is a far greater diversity of cast in an in-text canonical way. there's loads to love!

i love emily as a dodgy leader, to me it adds interesting dimensionality to the outsider's narrations - of course in dunwall there's never a neat happily ever after! emily, like the outsider, both work well as characters who hold ultimate power but aren't necessarily worthy of it - and this makes perfect sense for the dishonored universe's morality & critiques of power. however, within this grey area there's still plenty of room for a satisfying ending, which isn't what we ended up with, whatever the true reason for that was. and also, damn, emily's a marked assassin empress, if she can't lead well then who can?

while dh1 was criticised for its narrative simplicity, dh2 in contrast and in hindsight shows us that simplicity isn't so bad - there's satisfaction in gameplay achieves a clear, simple narrative goal.

[dreadark]

so bryophyta literally isn’t even a combat op

no wonder his kit is like that

[zoeylectric]

played Episode 0 of Of the Devil a couple days ago and literally can't get it out of my head. best ace attorney-like i've ever played and it's a fucking demo. i'm obsessing over the relationship and parallels between two characters who had a single scene. the mystery building, the presentation, the setting, the characters, the art, the writing, the mechanics, the way it weaves its themes, its setting, and the way Morgan sees the world into everything from the UI to cuts in the dialogue to the reward system. all playing with gas

AND it's about androids and toxic lesbians. (among other things)

cannot wait for episode 1. dividing it up into episodes really works with the genre and format, how it's already divided into cases. god. godd. i can already tell this game is going to drive me insane

[perenlop]

okay so as a gen 5 stan who does adore the story in bw and bw2, and now that gen 5 has experienced both a vicious hatedom that wouldnt hear a single positive thing about the games, and now a super protective fandom that insists they were perfect and had zero flaws... can we admit now that the bw1 story at least was. a little mid.

[soft-serve-soymilk]

Eugene: Harbourtown's Hollow Protector (A Meta Analysis)

The night is dim, awaft with the scent of sea-salt spray and crushed autumn leaves. A nearby cafe jingles with the sound of clinking cups, and it's heady aroma envelops the people with laughter and dance, untouched by the vastness of the sky and the sea. All but for one. His name is Eugene. He wears a neon pink jacket. He has a strange fondness for the word momentous. He's the sole "Protector of Harbourtown~!" But a hero complex-- and the insecurity beneath it-- doesn't spring from nowhere.

Not dissimilar to the melancholy ambience of New Wirral, the concept of emptiness and uselessness plagues Eugene throughout his adventures, and this comes to light in the archangel fight with Mammon.

Eugene reacts-- for an otherwise bombastic, enthusiastic guy-- quite poorly. He initially pushes back and gets defensive-- 'You don't know a SINGLE thing about me', but one can't keep up the charade of denial forever, and he begins to break down. Somewhere in his heart, he seems to read these words as true. Eugene comes from a post-capitalistic society, or at least the start of one. There, life was 'slowly' changing in emphasis from being 'rich and famous' to being generous to one's community. But even though Eugene states that it was a sudden shift in society's ways, such change never is so instantaneous. With billions of people on the earth, with a spectrum of political opinions, the hard-coding of capitalism is something that is difficult to undo. The ideal of getting a good job has been going on for decades, for instance. So to a bunch of children caught in the midst of it all, in the beginning of new change, indoctrinated into a capitalistic world that was bursting at the seams... it's daunting. Engulfing. And that's clearly what's happened in Eugene's case. He states that he was 'never very good at' the new way of life. This, combined with his reaction to Mammon which he holds to some truth-- 'I want order because you do. I crave structure because you do' shows that this new way of doing things has left Eugene feeling rather... useless. Especially since, truth be told, he doesn't see much in himself in the first place. Within the Gramophone Cafe, there's a bit of optional dialogue between him and Kayleigh. Kayleigh inquires that, with Eugene's desire to benefit Harbourtown, why doesn't he go join the rangers himself? To which he goes:

Besides the point that he is clearly putting up a front, when Kayleigh teases that he wouldn't be up to complete their challenge, we get this instead:

But! As Kayleigh tells the player after they acquire their ranger challenge, it's specific to the person applying. Kayleigh went around doing errands because that's in her nature. The player undertakes a combat challenge because that's in their forte, or at least the game assumes so. It's a bit suspicious, then, that Eugene reacts in this way. But after all, capitalism does take time away from personal development, it's no wonder that this boy doesn't understand what value he brings to the table innately, by breathing, by being alive and a good spirit, and trying and failing and trying some more. He needs to be told, multiple times, assuaged of it really, that 'You don't need to be a hero to have value'. That he doesn't need to go around heralding some grand cause to be something in the world. That niggling insecurity of his is further implied in the Aldgrave Tomb Station, with the gravestone text. The archangel for this one, Lamento Mori, as the pun also implies, is as much about death as it is the fear of being unable to live a meaningful and fulfilling life before it. The text changes for each of the party members to reflect their internal struggles, whether it is Kayleigh's people-pleasing, Felix's embarrassment over his past art, or in Eugene's case: 'All talk and no action'. And it is because of that Eugene is wrapped up in an unfulfilling hero complex. A hero is a strict role. They're defenders of justice. Chivalrous. Selfless. Brave. A far-cry from the open-endness, and thus emptiness, that Eugene sought to bury within him as he fought the landkeepers. It's a comfortable act to play, and that feeling of stopping the bad guys does well to console the ego and mind in the moment. And you know Eugene is really trying to play into it, because when he's caught in the heat of the moment, he reacts with embarrassment, as if he knows it's childish:

Which brings us to his series of relationship heart events. Because though insecurity is like a gaping hole in the heart, and Eugene has so far been trying to cover it up with the cling-film bravado of heroism, the cover can always be removed. It can be filled with something much more nourishing, like soil, which is precisely what happens. Eugene finds a new comfort in starting a community garden. And though it might initially read that he's still trapped in that cycle of constantly needing to help others, the truth is, he's beginning to liberate himself from the idea that he is useless. He takes pride in his little garden, and shows genuine confidence in it and it's potential, rather than snapping up under pressure like with Mammon, being tentative as if with the ranger challenge, or fawning over in embarrassment when the player first encounters him.

And the day is bright, and the scent of flowers and mulch lingers in the air. A nearby cafe jingles with the sound of clinking cups, and it's heady aroma envelops the people with laughter and dance, untouched by the vastness of the sky and the sea. And this time, everyone is there.

--

Thanks for reading my meta take on best boi!!! I highly recommend this other speculative opinion and it's addition by my friend @hungrydolphin91 and @millipedish, which I think is absolutely wonderful and very supplementary to mine :). I just didn't want to regurgitate the same stuff because. y'know. academic honesty and plagiarism ^^;

[squintsintwink]

I Am Once Again Asking EA To Add A Bands Feature To The Sims 4

[laugtherhyena]

Playing Bomb rush cyberfunk has been a crazy experience so far because i feel like I've been enjoying the game just as much as I'm not doing so

[freytful]

I've seen people complain about death stranding putting all of the Plot in the second half of the game, and I think i disagree with that being a problem. It lets you experience the gameplay loop and learning the (bonkers) worldbuilding before it shakes it up with specific plot and character details to keep you from getting bored in the second half of the game. It seems like good narrative game design to me. I guess the first half was a bit boring but I think thats the point. and I kinda like it like this

[sukimas]

i think that "this game did a lot of new and unique stuff and it's good for those reasons" being glossed into "10/10 GOTY Every Year" is part of why i've soured on three houses to such an extent. like it did introduce some things that fire emblem of the time had fairly desperately needed and that people weren't sure were going to show up outside of a remake. however, acknowledging its flaws (especially in storytelling) seems to have become a bit of a minefield due to this. the perils of being a trendsetter...

[thatvampireenthusiast]

oh i'm about to get the shit beaten out of me. great. this is gonna suck.

[codaynamics]

trying to tell me the big hairy bear-dogs are more interesting than a giant fatass iguana who eats herbivores whole like

jagras is bottom of the barrel early game trash and he's still got so much MH charm to him like. i dont give a fuck about anjanath but jagras is at least out here doing neat things.

the new leviathan is cool i guess but all i can think of is fucking jyuratodus and i hate that mother fucker.

show me more monsters like whatever that railgun dragon is, at least that's got something going for it that's really weird and quirky.

its not like it'll be a bad game or anything but im mostly just disappointed that we're not getting more monsters with gumption and fun built in.

and i dont buy any 'its just early game monsters' argument bc great maccao is right there. great izuchi is right there. qurupeco is right there. i could keep going, there's so many good, charming early game monsters in MH.

i'unno. the game will still be fun, and ill probably end up enjoying it anyway, but it's still disappointing to see the direction the mainline games are going from here on out ever since world's success.

[slightly-gay-pogohammer]

I wonder how many people voting 2013 have played any other TR game, lol

im gonna be a bit of a devil's advocate and say that 2013 is the best game after the classics tbh. like i stand by the fact that if it was a new IP and the devs werent as hateful as they were it wouldnt be as criticized as it was. like. It Has Flaws especially with gameplay and story integration but overall i had a good time with it

this said i 100% believe that a lot of people who like the second reboot more than the classics didnt get to play them :(

[majimassqueaktoy]

I found that segment of the game so frustrating lol

The scene where Majima and Makoto are walking to the takoyaki cart? But that's the beauty of it! It is frustrating and it hurts to watch Makoto to trip and fall but it's so important that the game and Majima let her walk on her own two feet- even if they're wobbly.

Like Majima understanding that she'd been jostled and grabbed and lead around- by him and by others, and how frustrating that is, because he does understand- it might not be exactly the same but being out of control of your body and life is something he knows well. So the game making the player slow down, you can't run, you can't speed it up- you've gotta let Makoto find her own way because Majima understands that's what she needs in the moment and Ough just really brilliant use of gameplay imo!

[lumeha]

Funniest shit in .hack//G.U. vol.1 is doing the arena battles and the game acting as if Haseo ISN'T kicking everyone's ass when he actively is

Kuhn had 14HP left before the cutscene

I'm sorry but that man was getting his ass kicked, not the reverse