May I ask why some Fire Emblem fans act like Awakening and Fates were the worst thing to happen to the series?

[General Banzai]

8 hours ago, Otts486 said:

its just as @omegaxis1 says. It's not so much about plot holes or villain writing but rather how the story chooses to convey it's core themes and messages. To me personally, the most important aspect of any story are its themes and messages and how it goes about conveying those themes and messages. Because a story's themes play into everything from its plot, characters, world, etc. and if there's one thing a story should almost never do is contradict its themes and messages. SoV does this in spades. This game's story is constantly contradicting itself without ever acknowledging it and just expects you to listen to what it's trying to say because it is quote "profound" or whatever. No if you tell me not to shop lift but then immediately when we walk out of the store you show me how many items you shoplifted. Why should I listen to you? You're just a hypocrit at that point and that's my problem with SoV's story. I mean say what you will about awakening's story but at least it's consistent with its themes. 

Also that's not to say a story can't contradict its own themes, its just the stories that do so do it intentionally for the sake of further exploration of said themes. If a story contradicts itself, at the very least it should acknowledge it and correct itself accordingly.  

Awakening if nothing else is extremely consistent on its themes, but it really is "if nothing else"--any of its attempts to build tension or mystery are undermined by its slipshod pacing and inconsistent tone, which fluctuates too much between parodically lighthearted and seriously dramatic for its seriously dramatic elements to succeed.

An anti-drug PSA can have consistent and strong themes, but that doesn't make it good. Awakening can't stand on its themes alone. Whatever inconsistencies exist in Echoes on a thematic level, it maintains a consistent tone and pacing that allows its big moments to succeed on an emotional level, something Awakening sorely lacks.

Of course this discussion only highlights the truly greatest FE story, Sacred Stones, where tone, pacing, theme, and character are all unified and consistent...

[Ottservia]

14 hours ago, General Banzai said:

Awakening if nothing else is extremely consistent on its themes, but it really is "if nothing else"--any of its attempts to build tension or mystery are undermined by its slipshod pacing and inconsistent tone, which fluctuates too much between parodically lighthearted and seriously dramatic for its seriously dramatic elements to succeed.

An anti-drug PSA can have consistent and strong themes, but that doesn't make it good. Awakening can't stand on its themes alone. Whatever inconsistencies exist in Echoes on a thematic level, it maintains a consistent tone and pacing that allows its big moments to succeed on an emotional level, something Awakening sorely lacks.

Of course this discussion only highlights the truly greatest FE story, Sacred Stones, where tone, pacing, theme, and character are all unified and consistent...

I will admit you do make a good point. Execution is very important part of a story exploring it's themes which is also ironically where your argument falls flat. A story contradicting itself IS a poor execution of those themes. Here's the thing. A story's most prominent moments are(or at least should be) deeply intertwined with its own themes. For example, the whole emotional conflict between clive and fernand is centered around Clive appointing alm(who they both believe to be a commoner) the leader of the deliverance. As the conflict escalates and it becomes more clear to clive that Alm is indeed not mycen's grandson, he begins to doubt that decision. This is where alm steps in and tells that it shouldn't matter if he's mycen grandson or not. That name/blood tie should not define the leadership role he has grown into. The whole point here is to prove that fernand is wrong that one's blood ties should not matter but their actions should define their worth.  That is how the story presents it and in the end Fernand sort of admits he's wrong, He shouldn't have doubted alm(who again he believes is a commoner) nor should he have been so bitter towards any of the commoners because he chose the "wrong" side of the argument with berkut. "That a man's worth is defined by his birth not by his actions". Here's the thing though, that entire scene loses all meaning when you realize that fernand was right in the end. A man is defined by his birth not by his actions because he shouldn't have doubted alm in the first place is because Alm is royalty anyway. It's kind of like of a "ha! in your face!" moment which is just kind of petty. Going back to my shoplifting example, "why should I listen you?" You're a hypocrit. I shouldn't care what you have to say because what you're saying isn't consistent with your actions. Its kind of like a fake out death in a sense. Like why make me go through that entire emotional scene just so you can undercut it by bringing the character back not even five minutes later. Why should I be invested in the scene if the message or point of the scene has no meaning. If none of this shit matters, then why should I care? That's my point.

it begs the question as why fernand is presented as in the wrong when the story is consistently proving that he’s right. It makes fernand’s little outburst and leaving of the deliverance completely null and void. His death scene only has impact because its undeserved but not in the way the writer’s intended. His death is undeserved because his core ideals were right not because it “could’ve been prevented had he admited he was wrong sooner”. He shouldn’t be presented as wrong because he isn’t wrong.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Otts486

[Etrurian emperor]

55 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

it begs the question as why fernand is presented as in the wrong when the story is consistently proving that he’s right. It makes fernand’s little outburst and leaving of the deliverance completely null and void. His death scene only has impact because its undeserved but not in the way the writer’s intended. His death is undeserved because his core ideals were right not because it “could’ve been prevented had he admited he was wrong sooner”. He shouldn’t be presented as wrong because he isn’t wrong.

Because even if we're supposed to accept that Alm is superior to everyone by birthright isn't quite the same as Fernands ideas. Alm and Celica set out to create a new kingdom that will presumably benefit everyone but that's explicitly what Fernand doesn't want. Remember, Fernand thinks everyone who isn't a noble MUST risk their lives for his cause without any sort of compensation. As such Fernands ideal new kingdom would probably be some sort of slave pit. 

At worst Alm stands for the belief that a strong king should use his power to protect and benefit his subjects. Fernand stands for a world were the commoners must do as he says without having the nerve to expect any sort of reward. 

[Slumber]

2 hours ago, Otts486 said:

it begs the question as why fernand is presented as in the wrong when the story is consistently proving that he’s right. It makes fernand’s little outburst and leaving of the deliverance completely null and void. His death scene only has impact because its undeserved but not in the way the writer’s intended. His death is undeserved because his core ideals were right not because it “could’ve been prevented had he admited he was wrong sooner”. He shouldn’t be presented as wrong because he isn’t wrong.

Fernand's ideals aren't only that "Royalty are the ones who can rule". Fernand strictly stands for classism, where nobility uses and abuses common workers, ideals that Alm completely opposes and themes the game never tries to pass off as legitimate. Fernand(And Berkut) doesn't stand for the idea that the royalty and nobility should rule because they're fit to, he stands for the idea that they should rule because they're born and deserve to.

For what it's worth, the early themes of "Anyone can be great" and "Everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their role in society" aren't proven wrong by Alm being royalty. Those themes still stand true throughout the game, and are things Alm still strives to prove, even after finding out he's the prince of Rigel. Even if Alm can't drive these themes home, characters like Tobin and Gray certainly can, and both rise to be two of the greatest knights in the Valentian Kingdom once Alm becomes king.

The only theme that kind of gets spat on is the idea that even commoners can rule, which is a theme that Clive introduces, and not one that Alm really sought to prove himself.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Slumber

[Ottservia]

5 hours ago, Slumber said:

Fernand's ideals aren't only that "Royalty are the ones who can rule". Fernand strictly stands for classism, where nobility uses and abuses common workers, ideals that Alm completely opposes and themes the game never tries to pass off as legitimate. Fernand(And Berkut) doesn't stand for the idea that the royalty and nobility should rule because they're fit to, he stands for the idea that they should rule because they're born and deserve to.

For what it's worth, the early themes of "Anyone can be great" and "Everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their role in society" aren't proven wrong by Alm being royalty. Those themes still stand true throughout the game, and are things Alm still strives to prove, even after finding out he's the prince of Rigel. Even if Alm can't drive these themes home, characters like Tobin and Gray certainly can, and both rise to be two of the greatest knights in the Valentian Kingdom once Alm becomes king.

The only theme that kind of gets spat on is the idea that even commoners can rule, which is a theme that Clive introduces, and not one that Alm really sought to prove himself.

 

6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Because even if we're supposed to accept that Alm is superior to everyone by birthright isn't quite the same as Fernands ideas. Alm and Celica set out to create a new kingdom that will presumably benefit everyone but that's explicitly what Fernand doesn't want. Remember, Fernand thinks everyone who isn't a noble MUST risk their lives for his cause without any sort of compensation. As such Fernands ideal new kingdom would probably be some sort of slave pit. 

At worst Alm stands for the belief that a strong king should use his power to protect and benefit his subjects. Fernand stands for a world were the commoners must do as he says without having the nerve to expect any sort of reward. 

Ok that's fair and is something I can somewhat agree with except the fact that the theme of "anyone can be great" is still undermined by the fact that alm is a royal. The reason being is the reason he can do all the cool stuff he does(wielding falchion and the royal sword and slaying duma) is because of his royal blood. This fact is explicitly stated throughout the course of the narrative. It's because he is the one with the special birthmark and the fact that he is the heir to rigel's throne is why he is great and allows him to do all these great things. Not everyone can be special. You have to be born special in order to accomplish anything in this world. At least that's how the story is presenting it. I'm not saying alm contradicts himself cause he doesn't(not necessarily anyway). I'm saying the story does. Alm says "anyone can be great regardless of the circumstances of their birth" but the game sure doesn't. The game is explicitly showing me the opposite. In that sense it's contradictory. Then there's the whole "yin-yang" theme the game tries to go for with the ideals of duma and mila which is a whole other can of worms.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Otts486

[omegaxis1]

38 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

Ok that's fair and is something I can somewhat agree with except the fact that the theme of "anyone can be great" is still undermined by the fact that alm is a royal. The reason being is the reason he can do all the cool stuff he does(wielding falchion and the royal sword and slaying duma) is because of his royal blood. This fact is explicitly stated throughout the course of the narrative. It's because he is the one with the special birthmark and the fact that he is the heir to rigel's throne is why he is great and allows him to do all these great things. Not everyone can be special. You have to be born special in order to accomplish anything in this world. At least that's how the story is presenting it. I'm not saying alm contradicts himself cause he doesn't(not necessarily anyway). I'm saying the story does. Alm says "anyone can be great regardless of the circumstances of their birth" but the game sure doesn't. The game is explicitly showing me the opposite. In that sense it's contradictory. Then there's the whole "yin-yang" theme the game tries to go for with the ideals of duma and mila which is a whole other can of worms.

6

Adding to this, there's this rather naive and silly notion that Alm tries to justify his case. When Clive challenges him on Alm's decision to help Luthier, and that the Deliverance cannot spend resources to deviate from their primary goal to save one girl, Alm counters by saying if the girl happened to be a noble or princess. Clive says that it isn't the same, while Alm says it is the same. 

Except Clive is right in saying that it isn't the same. Because if a village girl dies, the people as a whole or group would be alright. But if it was a princess, it would cause a disaster, because politically, their lives were tied to positions of power. This is because the people as a whole or majority places more value to the life of those in power. Alm's statement saying that they are the same is an incredibly naive thing. 

Even more in how Tobin and Gray, two guys that are villagers, prove that they are not the same league as Alm. Tobin has always been jealous of Alm and wanted to believe that he could be as great as Alm, but in the end, accepted he wasn't. 

6 hours ago, Slumber said:

Fernand's ideals aren't only that "Royalty are the ones who can rule". Fernand strictly stands for classism, where nobility uses and abuses common workers, ideals that Alm completely opposes and themes the game never tries to pass off as legitimate. Fernand(And Berkut) doesn't stand for the idea that the royalty and nobility should rule because they're fit to, he stands for the idea that they should rule because they're born and deserve to.

For what it's worth, the early themes of "Anyone can be great" and "Everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their role in society" aren't proven wrong by Alm being royalty. Those themes still stand true throughout the game, and are things Alm still strives to prove, even after finding out he's the prince of Rigel. Even if Alm can't drive these themes home, characters like Tobin and Gray certainly can, and both rise to be two of the greatest knights in the Valentian Kingdom once Alm becomes king.

The only theme that kind of gets spat on is the idea that even commoners can rule, which is a theme that Clive introduces, and not one that Alm really sought to prove himself.

 

7 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Because even if we're supposed to accept that Alm is superior to everyone by birthright isn't quite the same as Fernands ideas. Alm and Celica set out to create a new kingdom that will presumably benefit everyone but that's explicitly what Fernand doesn't want. Remember, Fernand thinks everyone who isn't a noble MUST risk their lives for his cause without any sort of compensation. As such Fernands ideal new kingdom would probably be some sort of slave pit. 

At worst Alm stands for the belief that a strong king should use his power to protect and benefit his subjects. Fernand stands for a world were the commoners must do as he says without having the nerve to expect any sort of reward. 

I feel that you guys are missing something about Fernand's character and not understanding what kind of ideals he truly had. Fernand doesn't think that commoners should be something simple as people that work in slave pits or such, but rather it was something in regards to honor and integrity, along with a sense of duty. His ideals are actually noble, but it was the suffering he endured that caused things to feel like it was the wrong way. I would like to direct you to a reddit post that perfectly analyzes Fernand character. Check it out:

Spoiler

 

 

[NekoKnight]

9 hours ago, Slumber said:

Even if Alm can't drive these themes home, characters like Tobin and Gray certainly can, and both rise to be two of the greatest knights in the Valentian Kingdom once Alm becomes king.

Alm really muddies what could have been a clear, consistent theme. It's kind of a big deal when your protagonist contradicts your core theme and you have to look to side characters. Tobin and Gray are only able to advance because they were childhood friends of an emperor's son. While you could say that it's proof that even common people can succeed if you give them a chance, the game also explicitly points out that they will never be Alm tier, because you have to be of noble birth to be the ultimate hero. The final theme we have to go with is "Royalty are better than commoners but, uh, don't be a dick about it".

 

[Slumber]

5 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

I feel that you guys are missing something about Fernand's character and not understanding what kind of ideals he truly had. Fernand doesn't think that commoners should be something simple as people that work in slave pits or such, but rather it was something in regards to honor and integrity, along with a sense of duty. His ideals are actually noble, but it was the suffering he endured that caused things to feel like it was the wrong way. I would like to direct you to a reddit post that perfectly analyzes Fernand character. Check it out:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I'll concede that I don't know the whole of Fernand's character since I never bothered with the DLC. But as he is in the base game, which I assume is what @Otts486 is going off of since we're talking about the themes of the main game, Fernand is strictly bound by classist ideals. Painted by bad former experiences or not, Alm being royalty doesn't mean Fernand was right, or anywhere near it.

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

Alm really muddies what could have been a clear, consistent theme. It's kind of a big deal when your protagonist contradicts your core theme and you have to look to side characters. Tobin and Gray are only able to advance because they were childhood friends of an emperor's son. While you could say that it's proof that even common people can succeed if you give them a chance, the game also explicitly points out that they will never be Alm tier, because you have to be of noble birth to be the ultimate hero. The final theme we have to go with is "Royalty are better than commoners but, uh, don't be a dick about it".

There's nothing indicating that either of them got the positions due to being friends with Alm, rather than their own abilities to be high ranking knights. We know that of the Ram villageers, Gray was the closest to matching Alm and regularly dueled with him. And despite this, Tobin is the one described as the exceptional knight between the two.

Being friends with Alm probably helped, and it's probably not too much of a stretch to assume that Alm's party was the foundation for the The Brotherhood of Knights, but there's absolutely no indication that commoners like Gray, Tobin, Forsyth and Python didn't get into the Brotherhood through their own merits.

Plus, the endings mention that Python turned down being a Knight, while no such comments are made for Kliff and Faye, two characters who really wouldn't cut it as knights. And you know Faye would have taken up the opportunity to be a high-ranking knight close to Alm in a heartbeat. So it's not like being friends with Alm is an in for the Brotherhood.

[Jotari]

On 1/3/2019 at 11:07 AM, General Banzai said:

Awakening if nothing else is extremely consistent on its themes, but it really is "if nothing else"--any of its attempts to build tension or mystery are undermined by its slipshod pacing and inconsistent tone, which fluctuates too much between parodically lighthearted and seriously dramatic for its seriously dramatic elements to succeed.

An anti-drug PSA can have consistent and strong themes, but that doesn't make it good. Awakening can't stand on its themes alone. Whatever inconsistencies exist in Echoes on a thematic level, it maintains a consistent tone and pacing that allows its big moments to succeed on an emotional level, something Awakening sorely lacks.

Of course this discussion only highlights the truly greatest FE story, Sacred Stones, where tone, pacing, theme, and character are all unified and consistent...

I'll give you tone, theme and characters, but Sacred Stones has some serious pacing issues in its final act.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Jotari

[Interdimensional Observer]

14 hours ago, Jotari said:

I'll give you tone, theme and characters, but Sacred Stones has some serious pacing issues in its final act.

Never have heard this criticism specifically about this specific game.

By final act, I assume you mean post-siblings second reunion.

Spoiler

If it seems rushed to you, I think part of the blame belongs to the fact that isn't much left on the villain side.

Vigarde is doubly dead, Duessel betrayed, Selena died a Camus, Glen got backstabbed, Valter and Caellach filled their stomaches with sand. 

Those who remain are Orson, who isn't interested in antagonizing and dies one chapter later. Lyon & Formortiis, the good villain who remains. And Riev, who is pretty generic and underdeveloped.

The absence of surviving villains is related to the fact that by the second reunion, Grado has been conquered and its army has been smashed to appropriately renamed Remnants. There isn't a whole lot of enemy to do battle with at this point.

And despite the Demon King being the lord of all monsters, he never uses them for an offensive at this point. Darkling Woods was you invading his turf and Neleras Peak has him using the Gorgons as a cover for his flight. And this despite four of the Sacred Stones being broken now and his power is enough to resurrect even without breaking the fifth and final stone.

Why, outside of the Phantom Ship and Landing at Taizel on Ephraim's route, never are monsters used as a conscious tool of Riev or Lyon/DK against the heroes. In the few remaining instances of monsters, they just stumble on the heroes out of their natural instinct.

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[Etrurian emperor]

I was never too impressed with Sacred Stones story. It doesn't screw up but aside from Lyon it doesn't try very hard either. A big problem is the lack of world building. There is no real reason to care about any of the places in Magvel. Even Reneais and Grado don't even get much development and some countries have to make do with only one chapter that focuses on them. And then there are the Terrors and their demon king who aren't nearly as impressive as the story needs them to be. Some extremely easy mook and a villain that lacks any personality or backstory doesn't really do much to convince me Magvel is in peril. 

Sacred Stones might not have a lot of low points but I don't think its got a lot of high points either. 

[Slumber]

I'd argue that if you don't care about Lyon(Which I don't), SS doesn't have a single high point in its story. I'll give Awakening and Fates points in this regard, in that they do have their moments to shine every now and then... less so in the story for Fates, and more for the gameplay, but still. It doesn't help that roughly 1/3 of SS really doesn't have any plot progression, and the story can be summed up as "Aahh! Real monsters!" in these instances. An already short, underdeveloped game is filled with filler, which just ruins the pacing of the entire game.

Beyond the really easy gameplay, it's part of the reason SS tied was my least favorite FE before the DS and 3DS eras of FE. Tying the original Gaiden, which is so ungodly slow that it makes me physically ill thinking about it.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Slumber

[redlight]

This topic is becoming something entirely else than what it was meant to discuss based on the last few pages

[Emperor Hardin]

39 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I was never too impressed with Sacred Stones story. It doesn't screw up but aside from Lyon it doesn't try very hard either. A big problem is the lack of world building. There is no real reason to care about any of the places in Magvel. Even Reneais and Grado don't even get much development and some countries have to make do with only one chapter that focuses on them. And then there are the Terrors and their demon king who aren't nearly as impressive as the story needs them to be. Some extremely easy mook and a villain that lacks any personality or backstory doesn't really do much to convince me Magvel is in peril. 

Sacred Stones might not have a lot of low points but I don't think its got a lot of high points either. 

While not used to their full potential, Sacred Stones monsters were actually threatening as opposed to being simple regular human classes or walking bags of EXP.

That the final battles of Awakening were all humans shows how the game didn't need monsters to begin with, I think.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Emperor Hardin said:

That the final battles of Awakening were all humans shows how the game didn't need monsters to begin with, I think.

It is a bit interesting that the final battle had no Risen in that battle, but Grimleal. 

[Emperor Hardin]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It is a bit interesting that the final battle had no Risen in that battle, but Grimleal. 

Yeah, I think Awakening should've gone all with monsters.

It was pointless to just have Revenants and Entombed in my personal opinion.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Yeah, I think Awakening should've gone all with monsters.

It was pointless to just have Revenants and Entombed in my personal opinion.

Yet at the same time, it also goes to have a clash between two forces. Grima has the Grimleal fighting for him, those that follow under his belief that destiny is set in stone and cannot be overcome, while Chrom leads the Shepherds, those that fight against destiny to create a new future. 

The Grimleal are ultimately filled with people that are nihilists and such, while the Shepherds are people that found a reason to keep fighting and living onward.

[Interdimensional Observer]

4 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

While not used to their full potential, Sacred Stones monsters were actually threatening as opposed to being simple regular human classes or walking bags of EXP.

It depends on the monster type.

Spoiler

Entombed are walking EXP bags, and Revenants are basically that too unless you're particularly squishy, unless either of these come in really big numbers- aka the Phantom Ship.

Bonewalkers and Wights are a step up, but not much, and possibly even a step down if you have WTA over them and can thus dodgetank.

Mogalls- Well mage fliers make them interesting. Pure Water/Barrier can nip the many Evil Eyes for even Cormag (though how many players actually use these normally)? Shadowshot and Crimson Eye is stronger and menacing though.

Mauthe Doogs/Gwyllgis- They're in a way tankier than Bones and Revenants, since they are much harder to double. The former are weak and will only really hurt the slow and squishy though, and the latter are so very rare in story battles.

Gar/Deathgoyles- Pegs with low Def comprising most of your air units makes them a little difficult to fight in the sky. Not exactly slow either. Stronger than their SoV counterparts I would say, but in the long run, only Deathgoyles pose any threat.

Tarvos/Maelduin, interesting choice of weapons. Decently strong I guess, but nothing really powerful.

(Elder) Bael- Yeah, these are strong. Monster weapon means you can't slash their hit via WTA.

Cyclops- Well they're really really bulky, and strong. But by the time they show up, you should have a sword unit able to breeze past their every swing. Only a true threat if ever when they're packing Swordreavers/slayers as well.

Gorgons- Deadly no matter what they wield.

Draco Zombies (can't say whether this or Necrodragon sounds better)- Look cool, high stats, and they penetrate all defenses. Of course, they're very very rare.

Overall, I'd consider at least for the main game monsters to be notably weaker than humans. Last Hope- the final vs. human enemies battle, is definitely harder than the last two fights, since those high leveled promoted enemies have better stats than the monsters.

 

10 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It is a bit interesting that the final battle had no Risen in that battle, but Grimleal. 

As in all the way up there?

What of the penultimate battle?

At the least, it'd make more sense for the final battle to be Risen, perhaps the penultimate as well. After Validar is offed and the heroes are done in Plegia proper, I think it'd possibly make more sense just to make it Risen. You've eradicated their central base after all.

[Etrurian emperor]

31 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

While not used to their full potential, Sacred Stones monsters were actually threatening as opposed to being simple regular human classes or walking bags of EXP.

That the final battles of Awakening were all humans shows how the game didn't need monsters to begin with, I think.

I think the final chapters are a big part in what makes the Terrors such a let down. I don't consider them threatening because I recall easily slaughtering tons of them in the final chapter. The only way the monsters whether they were skeletons or centaurs were even remotely threatening was if they wielded the specific counter weapons to my units. I don't recall the Risen having that same problem in Awakening and in some supports they are depicted as a threat regularly destroying villages rather than the mere nuisance the Terrors seem to be. 

[Emperor Hardin]

18 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

It depends on the monster type.

  Hide contents

Entombed are walking EXP bags, and Revenants are basically that too unless you're particularly squishy, unless either of these come in really big numbers- aka the Phantom Ship.

Bonewalkers and Wights are a step up, but not much, and possibly even a step down if you have WTA over them and can thus dodgetank.

Mogalls- Well mage fliers make them interesting. Pure Water/Barrier can nip the many Evil Eyes for even Cormag (though how many players actually use these normally)? Shadowshot and Crimson Eye is stronger and menacing though.

Mauthe Doogs/Gwyllgis- They're in a way tankier than Bones and Revenants, since they are much harder to double. The former are weak and will only really hurt the slow and squishy though, and the latter are so very rare in story battles.

Gar/Deathgoyles- Pegs with low Def comprising most of your air units makes them a little difficult to fight in the sky. Not exactly slow either. Stronger than their SoV counterparts I would say, but in the long run, only Deathgoyles pose any threat.

Tarvos/Maelduin, interesting choice of weapons. Decently strong I guess, but nothing really powerful.

(Elder) Bael- Yeah, these are strong. Monster weapon means you can't slash their hit via WTA.

Cyclops- Well they're really really bulky, and strong. But by the time they show up, you should have a sword unit able to breeze past their every swing. Only a true threat if ever when they're packing Swordreavers/slayers as well.

Gorgons- Deadly no matter what they wield.

Draco Zombies (can't say whether this or Necrodragon sounds better)- Look cool, high stats, and they penetrate all defenses. Of course, they're very very rare.

 

Overall, I'd consider at least for the main game monsters to be notably weaker than humans. Last Hope- the final vs. human enemies battle, is definitely harder than the last two fights, since those high leveled promoted enemies have better stats than the monsters.

Note though the monster's caps, most of which are unused.

Spoiler

Mogalls have high magic caps, similar to druid but with higher res and defense.

Gwyllgis have stats identical to Swordmasters, all they need is a crit boost.

Gargoyles have stats identical to wyvern lords.

Cyclops actually have 29 skill and 29 speed. Unfortunately none of them have good skill and speed, but they should.

Hard hacks of Sacred Stones which do nothing but buff the enemy stats, really make the monsters terrifying opponents, minus entombed of course. 

No matter how much Lunatic buffs Awakening's entombed, they're always a joke.

18 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

It depends on the monster type.

As in all the way up there?

What of the penultimate battle?

At the least, it'd make more sense for the final battle to be Risen, perhaps the penultimate as well. After Validar is offed and the heroes are done in Plegia proper, I think it'd possibly make more sense just to make it Risen. You've eradicated their central base after all.

Penultimate is also Grimleal, the last one you fight them on is the Deadlord map.

The Grimleal are constantly emphasized as fully evil as well, thus leaving no need for Risen.

15 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I don't recall the Risen having that same problem in Awakening and in some supports they are depicted as a threat regularly destroying villages rather than the mere nuisance the Terrors seem to be. 

So are the monsters in Sacred Stones, the story says they are powerful despite there poor record in story. Its pretty much the case for all FE monsters.

[Ottservia]

5 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

So are the monsters in Sacred Stones, the story says they are powerful despite there poor record in story. Its pretty much the case for all FE monsters.

but another thing that could be argued in favor of how the risen are established is presentation. Awakening has fully animated pre-rendered CGI cutscenes and boy do those cutscenes ever leave an impression on the ominous creepy vibe that the risen are supposed to give off. The way they're animated just gives them a weird uncanny "almost human but not quite human" feel to them. Also the cracking sound effect that plays in the cutscene they debut in certainly helps to sell that fact. Those glowing piercing red eyes. That weird decrepit mask marked with rows of jagged teeth along with the smoke billowing from their body really does leave an impression if you ask me. Where as Sacred stones(keep in mind I've only finished 15 chapters), the monsters just feel sort of there and are kind of generic in design. They just sort of how up without any real fanfare and don't leave much of an impression. I mean I understand completely that it was the limitation of the hardware and such which is why I don't fault SS too much for this but you know its something to keep in mind.

[Emperor Hardin]

1 minute ago, Otts486 said:

but another thing that could be argued in favor of how the risen are established is presentation. Awakening has fully animated pre-rendered CGI cutscenes and boy do those cutscenes ever leave an impression on the ominous creepy vibe that the risen are supposed to give off. The way they're animated just gives them a weird uncanny "almost human but not quite human" feel to them. Also the cracking sound effect that plays in the cutscene they debut in certainly helps to sell that fact. Those glowing piercing red eyes. That weird decrepit mask marked with rows of jagged teeth along with the smoke billowing from their body really does leave an impression if you ask me. Where as Sacred stones(keep in mind I've only finished 15 chapters), the monsters just feel sort of there and are kind of generic in design. They just sort of how up without any real fanfare and don't leave much of an impression. I mean I understand completely that it was the limitation of the hardware and such which is why I don't fault SS too much for this but you know its something to keep in mind.

Generic enemy fighter class units with spooky masks as opposed to all the weird and crazy monsters?

I know its personal taste, but why?

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Generic enemy fighter class units with spooky masks as opposed to all the weird and crazy monsters?

I know its personal taste, but why?

He just explained it. The animation really shows the creep factor. The Risen are dead, but the bodies are still flesh, but they make movements, sounds, and actions that are almost unlike that of a human. Whereas what you're showing here is just a skeleton holding a sword. Creepy still, but not as unnerving. 

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Generic enemy fighter class units with spooky masks as opposed to all the weird and crazy monsters?

I know its personal taste, but why?

I'm not really talking about how they are presented through in-engine models and such because in that regard you would be correct(kind of) I'm more so referring to how they are presented in this cutscene  Also the risen chief design/portrait as well is what I'm referring to:

[Emperor Hardin]

4 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

I'm not really talking about how they are presented through in-engine models and such because in that regard you would be correct(kind of) I'm more so referring to how they are presented in this cutscene  Also the risen chief design/portrait as well is what I'm referring to:

They're still all generic fighter class units in that cutscene, thats not impressive.

Look at this though.

I'd say those are all more terrifying then the risen chief.

Awakening doesn't even have dracozombies.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Emperor Hardin