BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, darkblade2814 said:

 

 THAT was way I liked it, the first time we could cap all the status of your characters, for me it's like the Lewin!Ced, the fun kind of broken, it is kind of fun seeing a the coments of the characters when they level up with most of their status are capped, like Priam's.

I can understand that. It's fun to rip the game apart like that. It's just that it's actually more fun when more effort is put into making characters broken on their own, like raising up Ike in PoR. You didn't ride on chance, you just have a really good unit that can take, avoid, and dish out damage without a cheap invulnerability pair-up system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I do prefer Awakening's Pair Up and Reclass system rather than Fates'. It was fun to solo the game with Chrom x Robin or Robin x Spouse. Made it feel like a proper battle couple, and considering Robin is Grima's vessel...heh. Fates was just...idk. It just didn't give me the same satisfaction.

 

This is mostly in response to Reddit's ship wars tournament that's been going on for the past month or so, but I don't have a Reddit account so...Marth x Caeda is the true OTP. Fuck Ike x Soren or Sigurd x Deirdre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I have problems with both systems, though if I had to choose I'd go with Fates for being a bit more balanced.

In Awakening, I paired up all the time because there was no reason not to.  It was basically a drawback free "pseudo-brave" effect with the added bonus of nullifying a few attacks.  And well, it being so stupidly broken is one of the reasons I hate Awakening.  It's like the Devs were like "you know what'd be cool?  Units attacking together." and proceeded to throw it in halfway through development without ever bothering to actually balance it.

In Fates (or at least CQ), I was in Guard stance all the time because enemies were almost always in attack stance, and negating their dual strikes was top priority because it, ironically, let me play the game more traditionally by removing the need to account for enemy dual strikes.  In general, I'd say the added ability of Guard stance to passively negate all dual strikes was a bit too good, still.

That said, I would definitely prefer nixing the system entirely.  I like the traditional 1 v 1 more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Glaceon Mage said:

That said, I would definitely prefer nixing the system entirely.  I like the traditional 1 v 1 more.

I second this, although pairing up did simplify getting support points, which was nice, considering how long it takes, especially with units that have different mov., like when I paired Aideen with Midir. That was really annoying because FE4 is essentially cavalier emblem and Aideen fell behind constantly.

Edited by Florina's #1 Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glaceon Mage said:

That said, I would definitely prefer nixing the system entirely.  I like the traditional 1 v 1 more.

Same. Don't get me wrong, Conquest still has the best gameplay in the series and i don't actually hate Pair-Up, but every time i play Fates (Awakening i sold months ago to get enough money to buy a Switch), i have to remind myself that Pair-Up is a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpopular opinion #1: Even if the Fire Emblem fanbase IS toxic (or at least the handful of FE internet posters), this isn't a bad thing.  It never gets old seeing people get so heated about a game revolving around cute anime characters.

Unpopular opinion #2: Camilla is a good character.  Sure, she has a fanservice design and a weird obsession with Corrin, but it works.  It's meant to be over-the-top.  The rest of the Fates lords were kind of yawn for me.

Unpopular opinion #3: The Fire Emblem games 1-5 look ugly and dated, and I don't understand how people can play the translated versions.  (Sorry!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Charmeleonbrah said:

Unpopular opinion #2: Camilla is a good character.  Sure, she has a fanservice design and a weird obsession with Corrin, but it works.  It's meant to be over-the-top.  The rest of the Fates lords were kind of yawn for me.

I agree, I love Camilla.

2 minutes ago, Charmeleonbrah said:

Unpopular opinion #3: The Fire Emblem games 1-5 look ugly and dated, and I don't understand how people can play the translated versions.  (Sorry!) 

I understand this. I usually can't play old games. I personally could not even make myself play Pokemon Emerald because it was so old looking (though it was also because it was slow-feeling and when I play a Pokemon game that doesn't have new Pokemon, I don't see the point) :\ But Genealogy has a unique feel to it, I like it a lot, to me it appears old, but not dated. The others, I don't know, I haven't played them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most FE games with both a male and a female protagonist would be better served having only the female protagonist. FE repeatedly puts their female "main characters" on the sideline in order to allow their male counterparts to swoop in and remind us all that they are, in fact, the real heroes. I don't need another burly dude with blue hair who is amazing at combat and without any flaws acknowledged by the story who either gets everything right, or gets it wrong but it doesn't matter because the game treats them like they were right the whole time. Give us a solo female lord for once so she can actually get proper character development on her own without being shoehorned into a plot device to show us how great generic male lord template is again.

Edited by Ether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Charmeleonbrah said:

The Fire Emblem games 1-5 look ugly and dated, and I don't understand how people can play the translated versions.  (Sorry!) 

I almost agree, if only because the Mystery of the Emblem artstyle is better than the DS remake artstyle. Jugdral's artstyle is kinda ugly though, i will admit. 

Gameplay wise, the only Kaga era game that should be played is Mystery of the Emblem. FE1 and Gaiden were Famicom titles and strategy RPGs don't work well on that system imo. Then the Jugdral games have the worst gameplay in the entire series. Specifically, FE4 has the worst gameplay in the series while Thracia's gameplay is only marginally better. On the flipside, Mystery of the Emblem's gameplay is actually pretty solid, barring the weird things like only Marth being able to visit the villages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ether said:

Every FE game with both a male and a female protagonist would be better served having only the female protagonist. FE repeatedly puts their female "main characters" on the sideline in order to allow their male counterparts to swoop in and remind us all that they are, in fact, the real heroes. I don't need another burly dude with blue hair who is amazing at combat and without any flaws acknowledged by the story who either gets everything right, or gets it wrong but it doesn't matter because the game treats them like they were right the whole time. Give us a solo female lord for once so she can actually get proper character development on her own without being shoehorned into a plot device to show us how great generic male lord template is again.

I don't mind having a male lord, but if getting rid of the male lord means getting a well developed female lord, then we need it to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I second this, although pairing up did simplify getting support points, which was nice, considering how long it takes, especially with units that have different mov., like when I paired Aideen with Midir. That was really annoying because FE4 is essentially cavalier emblem and Aideen fell behind constantly.

Though so is Awakening and many games in the series.

6 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Gameplay wise, the only Kaga era game that should be played is Mystery of the Emblem. FE1 and Gaiden were Famicom titles and strategy RPGs don't work well on that system imo. Then the Jugdral games have the worst gameplay in the entire series. Specifically, FE4 has the worst gameplay in the series while Thracia's gameplay is only marginally better. On the flipside, Mystery of the Emblem's gameplay is actually pretty solid, barring the weird things like only Marth being able to visit the villages.

The gameplay of SoV is virtually identical to the original.

Any opinion on Tearring Saga?

Edited by Emperor Hardin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I don't mind having a male lord, but if getting rid of the male lord means getting a well developed female lord, then we need it to happen.

If they can have both without defaulting to the male as the "real main character" then go ahead and have both. FE has, as of yet, not shown they are capable of this. I would love to be proven wrong, and hope the massive misstep with Alm and Celica was just a carryover from FE2 that they decided not to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

The gameplay of SoV is virtually identical to the original.

I've played both and i have to disagree. It's faithful, yes, but there's a lot of improvements that make it much better than the original. Stuff like Arts, the Turnwheel, Forging, etc, really gave the game a new, modern feel. The dungeons felt like actual dungeons and you weren't just walking through a corridor. Then there's just the general speed up of the game and being able to change starting positions.

So no, SoV's gameplay isn't virtually identical to the original. It's better in every way. The maps are still mediocre though.

16 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Any opinion on Tearring Saga?

Never played but i consider TearRing Saga (and Berwick Saga) to be their own thing. Likewise, i consider Kaga's recent Vestiria Saga to be it's own thing. I've heard good things about TearRing Saga and i may play it eventually though i also heard good things about the Jugdral games and we all know what my opinion is regarding them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Emperor Hardin said:

Though so is Awakening and many games in the series.

Do you mean cavalier emblem? FE4 is definitely the worst offender in that department, because the maps are just... so big. I mean, I haven't played the second part of FE4 yet, but the first part has chapters that are so enormous that anything with a movement of 6 or less has some issues keeping up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Armagon said:

I've played both and i have to disagree. It's faithful, yes, but there's a lot of improvements that make it much better than the original. Stuff like Arts, the Turnwheel, Forging, etc, really gave the game a new, modern feel. The dungeons felt like actual dungeons and you weren't just walking through a corridor. Then there's just the general speed up of the game and being able to change starting positions.

So no, SoV's gameplay isn't virtually identical to the original. It's better in every way. The maps are still mediocre though.

Arts are kinda eh, they're either terrible or ludicrously overpowered.

Forging is alright but hardly necessary.

Dungeons are good, yes.

Not really:

Archers are now even more overpowered as they now have good skill growth.

Dread Fighters are ludicrously more overpowered with Halve ALL magic damage.

FalcoKnights got a needed nerf due to more enemy archer not using generic bows, I'll give them that.

Barons are if anything, WORSE then the original. Keeping all their disadvantages, removing some small stuff that helped them in the original, while gaining plenty of unnecessary new ones.

For all the complaints about Shadow Dragon, it updated and balanced the gameplay much more then SOV.

10 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Never played but i consider TearRing Saga (and Berwick Saga) to be their own thing. Likewise, i consider Kaga's recent Vestiria Saga to be it's own thing. I've heard good things about TearRing Saga and i may play it eventually though i also heard good things about the Jugdral games and we all know what my opinion is regarding them.

Tearring Saga is kinda of like FE3's gameplay with elements of Jugdra and modern FEs.

9 minutes ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

Do you mean cavalier emblem? FE4 is definitely the worst offender in that department, because the maps are just... so big. I mean, I haven't played the second part of FE4 yet, but the first part has chapters that are so enormous that anything with a movement of 6 or less has some issues keeping up.

And Awakening mounted units get the most overpowered skills in the entire franchise. 

Note outside of Master Knight, cavalry classes in FE4 have lower stat caps then infantry in general.

At least FE4 felt like they were trying to buff classes like General.

Edited by Emperor Hardin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

And Awakening mounted units get the most overpowered skills in the entire franchise. 

Note outside of Master Knight, cavalry classes in FE4 have lower stat caps then infantry in general.

At least FE4 felt like they were trying to buff classes like General.

I'm talking about movement. The maps in FE4 are too large for you to use primarily infantry because you need to get places fast, or you'll miss important things, like recruiting Ayra, because if you don't take the castle fast enough, Ayra will reach you and start attacking your units, which will result in either one of your units dying or her dying. Another example is Dew and Aideen's recruitment, because they can't do much on their own, and when they are pursued, they don't have enough movement to escape through the trees. You have to help them by sending cavaliers that go around the trees, because two extra movement over a few turns is enough to change the tides of battle.

The other units have better stats, totally, but no one uses any armors in FE4 because they can't get anywhere. Arden is almost always on the bench, as sweet as he is :\

Mounted units in Awakening have good skills, but the other units in the game are still viable, and you only get three cavaliers, one of which is a Jagen archetype. In just part 1 of FE4, you get: Sigurd, Quan, Finn, Lex, Noish, Alec, Midir, and Ethlyn, not to mention Lachesis promotes to a mount as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I'm talking about movement. The maps in FE4 are too large for you to use primarily infantry because you need to get places fast, or you'll miss important things, like recruiting Ayra, because if you don't take the castle fast enough, Ayra will reach you and start attacking your units, which will result in either one of your units dying or her dying. Another example is Dew and Aideen's recruitment, because they can't do much on their own, and when they are pursued, they don't have enough movement to escape through the trees. You have to help them by sending cavaliers that go around the trees, because two extra movement over a few turns is enough to change the tides of battle.

The other units have better stats, totally, but no one uses any armors in FE4 because they can't get anywhere. Arden is almost always on the bench, as sweet as he is :\

Mounted units in Awakening have good skills, but the other units in the game are still viable, and you only get three cavaliers, one of which is a Jagen archetype. In just part 1 of FE4, you get: Sigurd, Quan, Finn, Lex, Noish, Alec, Midir, and Ethlyn, not to mention Lachesis promotes to a mount as well.

Arden is bad, but like I said looking at the class they tried to make his class good.

I think thats more due to Awakening being easier rather then being more balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Emperor Hardin said:

Arden is bad, but like I said looking at the class they tried to make his class good.

I think thats more due to Awakening being easier rather then being more balanced.

I agree with the fact they tried to make the knight class better, but FE4 still holds the title as Cavalier Emblem. Awakening has lots of OP classes, caps were just really high and growths were as well, so basically every unit made things easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I agree with the fact they tried to make the knight class better, but FE4 still holds the title as Cavalier Emblem. Awakening has lots of OP classes, caps were just really high and growths were as well, so basically every unit made things easy. 

Definitely. Enemy Generals are great because they don't have to go through a Knight phase and are always on the defensive.

Your Generals either come in as Armors Knights or too late. Then the big issue, no one ever attacks your castles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nanima said:

Awakening: Wallhart did nothing for me as a villain.

Same for me. He's basically a less effective Ashnard, with an even dumber motivation and none of the scheming that at least made Ashnard a little interesting. He also completely fails to live up to his in-game hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Glaceon Mage said:

It's like the Devs were like "you know what'd be cool?  Units attacking together." and proceeded to throw it in halfway through development without ever bothering to actually balance it.

Or it's like, say, they thought it would be the last one and were like "What the heck, if we're on the way out anyways, let's just put a bunch of ideas in here and we'll worry about balancing if we somehow do well enough to get another chance." and then put it in wherever they happened to be in development, knowing that if it did well they could always try and make it actually viable later on.

6 hours ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I can understand that. It's fun to rip the game apart like that. It's just that it's actually more fun when more effort is put into making characters broken on their own, like raising up Ike in PoR. You didn't ride on chance, you just have a really good unit that can take, avoid, and dish out damage without a cheap invulnerability pair-up system.

Eh, that's player preference - with Awakening I prefer to have everyone be potentially broken so I can do a run with literally whatever restrictions I want and still be able to beat and enjoy the game, particularly as I'm trying to get 100% complete Support Logs and so am in the middle of a LOT of runs and need to keep coming up with restrictions so it stays interesting.

On the other hand, I like that I have to actually sweat it out to make my current SoV restriction run - only use Alm, Celica, the Ram Villagers and the Cipher 4 - work the way I'd like it to, particularly as Celica has to go completely alone for the entirety of Act 2 which makes it interesting.

2 hours ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I don't mind having a male lord, but if getting rid of the male lord means getting a well developed female lord, then we need it to happen.

That's a very dangerous way to word that, friend - assuming the devs took that at face value, FE Switch would have no male Lord and the female Lord would be bustier than Camilla.

Edited by SoulWeaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AzureSen said:

Same for me. He's basically a less effective Ashnard, with an even dumber motivation and none of the scheming that at least made Ashnard a little interesting. He also completely fails to live up to his in-game hype.

I do agree that Walhart is a wet thud of a villain, but I'd say his motivation it pretty much the only thing that makes him unique.

While most other "conquerors" like Ashnard are a bit more charismatic and intimidating, their motivations are usually paper thin. Walhart's the opposite, in that the idea of culling the weak to ensure a population strong enough to stand up to a big catastrophe is a bit more of a fleshed out idea, but again, he has the personality of a grain of rice.

I'd still much rather have Ashnard. Like, I actually kind of like Gangrel as a personal villain for Ylisse, and his arc was far and away the strongest. Validar's so bad that he's at least fun to make fun of and mock. Walhart having a more interesting motivation doesn't really make him an engaging villain. He just exists to say things a caricature of Genghis Khan would say. Actually, scratch that. The Genghis Khan caricature in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure is waaaaaaaaay better than Walhart. Plus, SoV had to shoe-horn in a possibly non-canon post-game to even hint at an explanation for how Walhart knew about Grima.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

That's a very dangerous way to word that, friend - assuming the devs took that at face value, FE Switch would have no male Lord and the female Lord would be bustier than Camilla.

I'm not even a fan of large busts, and I still don't see anything wrong with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ether said:

I'm not even a fan of large busts, and I still don't see anything wrong with this.

I only care if it's done kind of tastefully. It's not like having large breasts makes a character inherently less respectful. As much as people like her for her breasts, I like Tifa from FF7 as a character. More than Yuffie and Aerith by a long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

That's a very dangerous way to word that, friend - assuming the devs took that at face value, FE Switch would have no male Lord and the female Lord would be bustier than Camilla.

That... is possible? I don't even want to think about that.

Honestly, I want a tomboy female lead. Like a lord Dorothy or something, one that isn't busty, isn't overly attractive, and isn't the irritating "I want to talk out our feelings" female trope that hates violence, one that would defy the beauty standard all the females seem to be held to and doesn't wear a bikini in the summer DLC and isn't used for annoying fanservice. I even think it'd be cool if for once, the lead was okay with fighting, and maybe had more of an issue when not fighting, like a war hero that doesn't know how to readjust to a normal life, or has never been good at anything but combat.

5 minutes ago, Ether said:

I'm not even a fan of large busts, and I still don't see anything wrong with this.

I think he means they wouldn't actually have a developed character as in a good personality and backstory, just more 'developed' cleavage. Ugh.

Edited by Florina's #1 Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.