Support your Assertions - How not over-simplifying language can improve your life.

[@garthmarenghi9040]

Agreed. In particular, "Bad writing" is such a reductive, lazy statement. There are so many aspects of a work's narrative (plot, theme, characters, tone, worldbuilding, prose/dialogue, subtext, etc.), and reducing it to a simple "good/bad as a whole" is so unspecific as to be useless for criticism and unhelpful for discussion. For example, FE 10 continues FE 9's excellent worldbuilding and character interactions, but has some contrived plot elements that damage the themes and tragedy that the narrative could have supported.

[@MythrilZenith]

I've gotten to the point where I'm officially jaded against the term "Bad Writing" because I see it applied to every single work of fiction with a plot nowadays, and it just means nothing.

[@SpliceStream]

This video is good. Forcing yourself to vocalize why you like or dislike something often leads to very interesting self-realizations. Sometimes it even helps you realize biases you didn't realize you have. With me dipping my toes in Fire Emblem: Awakening, this being my first Fire Emblem experience, I used to always say I hate grinding. Because I'm having to stream it and people are noticing me doing a lot of grinding and pointing out the inherit contradiction, I've had to try to vocalize why I'm actually okay with this grind. I wasn't sure of the answer to that to start but I think it's because of how the relationship mechanic works. The Grind isn't just a grind but a way to access more story. I'm realizing I hate grinding for the sake of numbers but if you put breadcrumbs there along the grind, I enjoy it.

[@MythrilZenith]

Exactly. When you are pushed to add detail, even just one or two steps further, you come to some very interesting realizations.

[@Lacagz]

I think I have always done this and always rubbed people the wrong way but now I can articulate the mesage across easily thanks!

[@MythrilZenith]

Yeah I find that people tend to not really engage with you if you reasonably defend yourself. If there's nothing they can pick apart they would rather just ignore you than try to actually respond. Kind of makes reasonable discussion hard.

[@EnigmaticMrL]

Okay, more serious comment: there are two things I want to add to this. 1) Sometimes when you back up your claims with evidence, people want back up for that evidence, then back up for that back up, and so on and so forth. For example, I would say that while Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia is a solid enough game overall (for me there is kind of a floor for how bad a main series Fire Emblem game can be), it is outclassed by most other Fire Emblem games IMO. A big part of why I think this is the map design. If someone asked why I disliked the maps, I would say that while it is debatable if boring, forgettable maps or frustrating, annoying maps are worse, Shadows of Valentia has both. Alm's maps have the former while Celica's maps are the latter. But if someone disagreed and pushed further saying that the map design wasn't that bad, eventually I wouldn't know how to respond further. 2) What's interesting is that someone can like something for the very same reasons you dislike it, or vice versa. Some people dislike the fact that games like Genealogy of the Holy War, Binding Blade, and Raidant Dawn have unbalanced casts. They want to be able to use any unit without hindering themselves too much. But others like certain units being head and shoulders above the rest or others feeling like a project. Turning a bad unit into something competent feels rewarding. Another example is access to changing classes. Some players enjoy open reclassing because it gives them more options to play around with, while others feel like it makes the cast blend together and takes away a big part of unit identity. One last example is the remakes of Shadow Dragon, New Mystery of the Emblem, and (again) Echoes: Shadows of Valentia. Many people feel like these remakes changed too much to the point of being unfaithful to the originals. Non-HP stat caps of 20 were removed for the Archanea games, as well as adding in weapon triangle to games where it wasn't originally in mind, creating unbalance. For Shadows of Valentia, some didn't like how powerful tools like warp, triangle attack, and the speed ring were heavily toned down. Still others claimed that by keeping the original map designs and (mostly) stories of the originals, the remakes did not do nearly enough to fix the problems of the originals.

[@MythrilZenith]

And this is exactly why pure logic and reason are insufficient. I still think it's worth considering more deeply than surface level, but I definitely agree that you will ALWAYS hit a point where you are unable to find any deeper reasoning. That point may come well after the explanation is effectively solid, but it will always be reached if you continue to dig down. I also should probably state that I'm not against matters of opinion or emotion; I fully embrace the fact that people like different things and that there is no single "correct" way to make a game or movie or piece of art or etc. Because if there were, humanity would have found it by now and have stopped creating new things. My main point is that instead of leaving things 100% in the realm of opinion, we try to at least dig into WHY we have those opinions, which will in turn allow us to find other things we like or don't like and be able to further explore things that bring us joy, rather than just chasing whatever everyone else is playing or watching or thinking and never forming a basis for our own opinions. Basically, my channel audience is probably not the people that most need to hear this, but it's been a bee in my bonnet for long enough I'm putting it into the world anyway.

[@Moo_Nieu]

To your first point, you could respond by following the thread of motivation back to the source. Doing so can be a bit time consuming though, and would probably result in every conversation becoming a bit of a jumbled rambling mess (see below). -------------------------------------------------------------------- To use your example, you could try and trace back what exactly constitutes "good map design". Maybe you'd say that good maps offer interesting choices that force the player to plan their moves out carefully. But what exactly do choices and planning have to do with anything? Why are those desirable? Because choices are fun and pulling off a slick strategy is satisfying, right? But why is that the case? You could try to trace that back to why people play these types of video games in the first place. You could say that games that present choices and encourage planning cultivate a sense of mastery in the player. Okay, but why is that desirable? Go back further to fundamental human motivation. Think lizard brain stuff. Back when we were still hunter/gatherers, developing skill and mastery over something would usually lead to more opportunities. If we practiced throwing rocks and got really good at it, we might be able to use that to hunt down small animals for food, which would give us a better chance at survival. And so our brains evolved to reward that sort behavior with happy chemicals, since we're more likely to engage in skill cultivation if it's actually pleasurable to do so. If you really boil it down and grossly oversimplify, video games are just a way for us to hijack this chemical reward mechanism for the sake of entertainment, polished up and hidden by several layers of narrative/mechanical abstraction. In the context of Fire Emblem, it'd be things like processing information, identifying patterns, prioritizing objectives, and dealing with incoming threats. All useful skills that would have helped us survive out in the wild. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, but that only really explains why people who enjoy choices and planning would find certain map design to be engaging. What about the example person you mentioned who didn't find the maps to be that bad? What's going on there? It's probably obvious, but it's just that people are motivated by different things. Or traced back to the lizard brain, you could say that there are a lot of different activities that can trigger that reward mechanism, because there are a lot of different things that are good for our survival. Your brain will reward you for practicing rock throwing, but it will also reward you for long-term planning and forging social bonds, since those things keep you alive too. Working hard to store away food for the winter, for example, or maintaining friendships so you don't get kicked out of the tribe and killed by a moose or whatever. So for your example person who wasn't bothered by the maps, it might just be that their brains are wired such that they derive more pleasure from the long-term planning and social aspects of the game. They might still agree that certain SoV/Gaiden maps aren't amazing, but the satisfaction of building up an army and helping the characters achieve their goals (simulated social interactions) might be enough to carry the experience for them. So long as there are fun enemies to fight and/or an interesting narrative moments, they might still have a good time despite a lackluster map (e.g. Berkut in Forest Crossroads). Some people also just need less stimulation to maintain engagement, which probably also ties back to evolution/survival. Think about how some folks can happily grind away for hundreds of hours in an RPG, while others get bored almost immediately and tend to gravitate towards more action-oriented titles. Out in the wild, the former might be good at tedious but necessary work, such as keeping watch at night while your friends sleep. The latter might be better for tasks that require being able to rapidly switch gears, like foraging/hunting for food while staying alert for predators and environmental hazards. A diverse population gives the group a better chance of survival, and so it makes sense that we're all a little different in the things we find rewarding. If all of us only enjoyed hunting/gathering and nobody kept watch at night, we'd all get eaten by badgers or some such! =D -------------------------------------------------------------------- All of that is pretty reductive though. Video games are incredibly complex, and saying something like "games are just tools to trick our brains into releasing reward chemicals" doesn't really help with examining them from an artistic/mechanical point of view. Might be worthwhile to keep the underlying mechanisms in mind though, especially with how aggressive predatory monetization has become in recent years. Understanding why games make our juices flow can help us spot when greedy assholes are trying to hijack said juices to line their pockets.

[@LeviAuren]

The words are better as adverbs than as verbs. (wrong) Fogado is a bad unit. (better) Fogado comes online when you likely already have one or two bow users up, with the enemy design of engage incentivizing you to have already done so (lots of fliers from very early on). His attacking stats are awkwardly split between strength and magic that often feels like he can't quite make useful thresholds with low investment on hard mode. Fogado additionally joins at a time when you are being pelted with some of the most easy to make use of units in the game (Zelkov, Ivy, Kagetsu, Merrin, Padreo, Pannette). His personal is difficult to make use of or even envision a common use case for, making him get inevitably prioritized underneath the kickass cast he enters alongside. That being said, his crit animation is a cool GBA-style knockout and I found his supports with Lapis and others charming.

[@Devmon52]

Excellent video! I appreciate that you've stated your background for language and verbiage is coming from a graduate level writing and philosophy course, because I can very much relate given my own graduate studies and writing. This is a subject matter that seldom gets actually discussed and even as a reminder for those who practice more critical thinking it is valuable. I also appreciate the example of Dark Deity used for discussion partially because I played through it once and had similar findings, and because of the amount of nuance within the discussion. Thank you!

[@MythrilZenith]

I'm glad at least some people can appreciate my point without throwing bad faith arguments. Thank you!

[@kevinluyo1142]

Please keep making videos like this! I've been watching ProfessorBopper for a while, and they decided to make a non Fire Emblem related video which popped off, and then I saw them featured in PhilosophyTube and I was like whoaaaa. That's the Fire Emblem video guy! We made it! I'd love to hear your thoughts, perhaps even in a sequel video, about "mid." I agree with the core premise that saying thing good or thing bad is harmful for many of the reasons you mentioned. I also think saying "thing bad" is unconstructive because it doesn't help you reflect on the things you do like, while also shaming people for liking what they like. However, I feel like calling things "mid" as we often do nowadays is worse in many ways. "Thing good" is at least positive and spreads enjoyment. "Thing bad" at least makes an assertion, albeit an oversimplified one. "Mid" on paper makes no stance, but it still has a negative connotation. I feel like the prevalence of calling media/art, or even the creators behind the media/art, mid offers the same negatives as calling something bad. It still shames people who enjoy it, while offering even less to the conversation.

[@MythrilZenith]

Mid is a weird one. It's "hip lingo" to use archaic ways of describing it, and it does have certain connotations, but you're right in that it's a somewhat negative-leaning stance that at least acknowledges something isn't bad, but maybe it's niche or unremarkable.

[@jemolk8945]

I am of a mind with Socrates on this -- the unexamined life is not worth living. This ties into everything, and I do mean _everything._ If you take the time for contemplation, you can communicate more clearly, and you'll have an easier time finding things you like and avoiding ones you don't. But also, on top of that, it makes you considerably more difficult to manipulate. I don't think there's any aspect of life where clarity of thought and deeper understanding could fail to be of value. Not always in the same way, of course -- but that's merely why you need to apply such considerations to the original considerations themselves.

[@MythrilZenith]

For bonus points - see if you can find the unit position bug in this video! A second one happened soon after I stopped recording, but I definitely got at least one captured here.

[@DavidKyokushin]

4:40 It's funny how it coincided with the voice over, too

[@jemolk8945]

That was pretty jarring to see, NGL. I was watching what was going on in the background, and it looks like a shove (push, I guess) moved the unit but not the sprite, while also causing the sprite to vibrate out of control. ...And then, after the unit got attacked, the sprite (but not the unit) shifted in a different direction and stopped vibrating. As bugs go, I'm going to go ahead and guess that this one would be a pain to trace, and an even bigger pain to fix. Then again, if it happens regularly enough for you to get it twice in quick succession, it might not be so rough to trace, and it probably should elevate its priority too. Rare visual glitches are easy enough to look past, but common ones that make the field of a strategy game difficult to read at a glance? Oof.

[@valemontgomery9401]

You are absolutely in the majority when it comes to Wish, lol. That aside, these are great tips. Definitely fell victim to these pitfalls before

[@MaddMoke]

Im a handful of maps into Dark Diety and I am getting the same feeling. Beyond any challenge of the enemy units or placement, the UI has been the largest challenege to me. Frequently Ill move to a square I dont want or not attack on accident or even press the back button one too many times when trying to get out of a character screen and quit the map. Now some of that is me just being careless or not familiar with the full controls. But it doesnt feel intuitive enough. The story early on is very bland but i am very early on. But what has been enjoyable is the large cast and various types of play you get very early on. I get the impression this game wants us to play multiple times to try all sorts of combinations of class mixes and upgrades but like you said I dont know its polished enough for me to want to get through more than once

[@MythrilZenith]

It's definitely a game that relies HEAVILY on the enjoyment of core Fire Emblem mechanics and the excitement of seeing what new things will become. It's still fun, but there are enough issues with it that I can't really recommend it to anyone without caveats.

[@jierdareisa4313]

I love ALL MythrilZenith videos!!!! ❤ Edit: Man, my usual "I love this channel" comment feels tongue and cheek given this video's topic

[@MythrilZenith]

Was gonna say, this video puts that to the test haha

[@jierdareisa4313]

@@MythrilZenith the reason I do these comments is twofold: - it lets the content creator know I enjoy their content (in your case, because I find interest in your deep dives in Fire Emblem, a videogames series I enjoy, as they let me better understand some mechanics and push me to try out new things in future playthroughs); - most importantly, it lets KZbin know that I enjoy your content, which in turn would slightly boost your video and also would let your videos or similar content appear more frequently in my recommended feed.

[@eaturgrns]

I think this vid is good. (I have watched 14 seconds of it.)

[@neongrey333]

ok but have you considered that your content is Good

[@Fluff2556]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the goal or the intent of the video, I struggle to find the value in turning 20 words into 60. I don't see the benefit in throwing a thesaurus around when plain language not only gets the point across, but actually... lets everyone stay on the same page to even have a discussion in the first place. There's a reason we give animals names and we don't commonly use their genus like a gaggle of scientists in the corner of the room. Or to actually put what I just said into practice; the problem is OVERsimplification. NOT just simplification. Common language is common for a reason. And often, having the ability to bring a point or opinion across in a common, digestible, and simple way is a far better expression of mastery and expertise than flexing as many obscure topics and concepts to drown everyone around you in a bile of technicality. "Just because you're correct doesn't mean you're right." But, again, I don't even really strictly disagree. I just don't think being intentionally overcomplicated, and frankly obtuse, is the solution. Just explain. Expound. Extrapolate. Yeah, just saying "'is gud" isn't helpful. It does kind of lead into this situation that ends with "ok, but why?" Which just loops around on itself. There IS value to be had in knowing why and how something is enjoyable or unenjoyable to you. Being able to express that, if the need ever arises, is a positive aspect... ...But that's assuming the context even REQUIRES a discussion in the first place. Not every opinion needs a grand, staunch defense. I'm not gonna get into a philosophical rant to the cashier at Wendy's over WHY I like their frosties. I can very safely keep those reasons to myself and just order.

[@MythrilZenith]

The point wasn't to be intentionally overcomplicated. The point wasn't even to tell anyone else your opinions. The point was to be able to give one or two more levels of detail when prompted so you don't end up looking like someone who has no taste.

[@revivalfromruins]

What's wrong with Forspoken?

[@emotional_st0rm]

While I think your overall point about being more thoughtful around media is very solid, I disagree with how much value you assign to 'logic'. As a psychology student, we hear it all: logic is the best, because it allows for synthesis. No, experimental science is the best, because it allows for objectivity and truth. No, emotion/lived experience is the best, because it allows for authenticity and is important for wellbeing. In truth, all of these things are important - they underpin science and life as a whole. We use logic to construct a hypothesis, we use that hypothesis to design empirical experiments, which we then interpret subjectively as we conduct the study and write up the discussion. Framing your personal experience of something as being worthless and needing to "back it up" with logic defeats the purpose. Sometimes you're allowed to simply have an experience of something, without any real rhyme or reason behind it. Logic isn't the end-all and be-all of experience, but it is an important aspect. Synthesising the statistics (such as game sales, reviews), logic (game design philosophy) and emotion (your own taste, how the medium makes you feel), in my opinion, will definitely lead to better enjoyment and understanding than skewing towards just one.

[@MythrilZenith]

That's very fair. I think all these metrics are important, and I definitely leaned into logic as a crutch because I was having a hard time making the point that you can find more reasons to examine your life and choices when also trying to tackle the split between various factors, and thus I ended up shunting lived experience and opinion down as a result. I firmly believe that while Logic has its day it isn't king of all seasons, much like opinion or statistics or the like have their times to shine but shouldn't be taken outside of those contexts. I just personally find that people in discussions like this tend to grossly overvalue raw emotion and undefended opinion, and thus that was the angle taken here. Were I able to fully craft a persuasive and entertaining script on the pure balance of all forms of reasoning I probably wouldn't be making Fire Emblem KZbin videos for grocery money.

[@hansgretl1787]

Most people I've seen criticizing media do in general explain why they do, so I can't really say that I think this video was all that necessary. The few times I see people not expanding on their statements is in like stream chats, but who is honestly gonna write a 300 words essay on a game in a stream chat, you know? I guess this might also be because I am not on any other social media platform other than KZbin, so I guess this is more of a Twitter issue? The one notable example that I CAN think of however is the general narrative between Engage and Three Houses: "Engage has good gameplay and bad story, Three Houses has bad gameplay and good story." I hear this claim a lot which is bizarre to me as I usually think of Three Houses as having fairly good gameplay. I was just about to end the comment here, but I noticed that I didn't actually expand on why I think Three Houses gameplay is good, did I? But it's also not exactly relevant in this context, is it? I was just using it as an example. This is why I'm saying that in many contexts, it makes perfect sense for someone not to explain their feelings on something in excruciating detail, since it's often not exactly pertinent to the discussion at hand or would derail a conversation.

[@MythrilZenith]

And that's totally fair. But the majority of the common narrative is not actually driven by well made critique, it is driven by the colloquial "bad/good" oversimplifying which creates sound bytes that people then carry on, outsourcing the thinking and reasoning to content creators. And while you raise a valid point that you don't NEED to go into detail, I also still am not benefitted from your statement other than I now know something of your opinion on 3 Houses' gameplay and that you enjoy it more than other people, but as for WHY or what parts I have no other interest. Basically this comment could not exist and it would change nothing. You don't need to go into exhaustive detail every time, but even like ONE more step beyond good/bad is infinitely more helpful. Just do one step. There are diminishing returns on excess detail, but that first step is SO IMPORTANT.

[@hansgretl1787]

@@MythrilZenith How do I put this? There is a difference, at least to me, in trying to convince someone of your opinion, and simply stating your feelings on a subject. I agree that a simple explanation of why I think Three Houses gameplay is good would be valuable. If I am ever in a serious discussion, I do try to make it point to add explanations. But not every single opinion that you ever voice should have to be one where you take the effort to do that. Maybe it's because I am typing this and most of my commebts on a phone which is cumbersome, or because it takes me more mental energy to phrase all of this in English which isn't my native language, but whatever the case, in small stakes discourse it can be fine to get to the point. If I say "I don't like X", then that is all that means. I don't like it. It doesn't mean "X is bad and you should agree with me". If that were what I was trying to say, THEN I would certainly make the effort of substantuating that claim.

[@MythrilZenith]

@@hansgretl1787 fair. If all you want to do is state an opinion then that's fine. I just feel very strongly personally that even if you aren't sharing your opinion or trying to argue, figuring out for yourself why you like or dislike something can be very personally rewarding. But if all you want to do is voice an opinion then just voice the opinion. I personally don't care about anyone's opinions, you're free to have them. And maybe I'm the weird one who finds no value in just telling people my opinion.

[@hansgretl1787]

@@MythrilZenith Oh, I certainly think a lot about why I do or don't like certain things. Engage for example has taught me that I am a total character/worldbuilding guy. I didn't know that about myself at first, but I really had to reexamine myself in that way after playing that game. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a time and place. It's kind of like slang. Sure, it's likely not as precise as official language, but it's easy shorthand to fall back on and good enough if you're trying to communicate fficiently rather than wholistically.

[@Hell_O7]

Nea t

[@EnigmaticMrL]

This video is bad.

[@MythrilZenith]

Thank you for your critique, I will put it gently and carefully into the shredder.

[@FalcoFreeling]

My reply to you is bad because it doesn't say that it lacks substance.

[@HanakkoLove]

While you say you want to make the video "approachable" you constantly use big words that unequivocally are not approachable to everyone, and while you say you don't want to seem smarter than anyone else, that's exactly how it comes across when you say that and continue to use verbose wording. Please consider that in your future videos and projects.

[@MythrilZenith]

Use just bad good bad. Use more word good.

[@HanakkoLove]

@@MythrilZenith I know you're joking, but I'll be real; when you say "grammatical lexicon" instead of simply "vocabulary", it comes across as very pretentious. I don't mean to hate, but to offer constructive criticism.

[@MythrilZenith]

​@@HanakkoLovethat's fair. The second paragraph of this video was probably a mistake and needed heavy edits.

[@orelas167]

I'm sorry but even I think the word choice is too complex in this. You can't use advanced words like "superlative" and "lexicon" in speech without varying your tone and pacing to give the kind of emphasis you feel about them. The emphasis should show or hint at what you can do only with that word, and not another. And you should certainly avoid plastering your sentences full of them. Otherwise it's just a lot of empty noise. It's making people strain to hear a rapid speech pace on words that take a while to register, without anything deeper behind it.

[@MythrilZenith]

That's fair. I was channeling my advanced writing courses when writing the script, but treating the read off like any other video. I am not used to reading my technical writing aloud in a way that other people can understand, and since I was the person who wrote it I got inured to the actual complexity of the words I was using.

[@SapphicSara]

Memorable opinionated word. Forced Opinionated Word. Enjoyable opinionated word. Flaws is opinionated. You cannot back your own assertions without also having to assert some things as factual when there is no factual way to engage media. I can ultimately only state a matter of taste even when going into a further deep dive. I can say what I learned as an actress, as a writer, as a honed master of a craft sure but even that is subjective, even the most elite course that produces the greatest results simply produces opinions, frameworks, concepts but these can be challenged and often are challenged. It is much better to engage the media your talking about "good" and "bad" are both useful ways to simplify one's feelings on a topic. While you should personally engage critically with the media you love the most and hate the most, I do think that the idea we should pivot our casual conversational tone to positing the reasons in which why something is "good" or "bad" when talking swiftly or simply simplifying a conversation for the sake of brevity is a foolish endeavor. I do think if all you do with media is say "This is good" "This is bad" your not engaging your brain at all and you should stop. I am a big proponent of engaging media critically, I am often sounding like I hate things I love because I talk about them wholly and don't simply praise things but I do think this is a conversation that is more "you should do this for you" rather than "You should do this for others."