Spoiler Alert

Alright, so I'm curious as to how this will go, as I only just read the story. True to my username, spoiler tagging my post to be safe, since the topic isn't.

I had a hard time articulating it in my last post, but I think Fire Emblem would work surprisingly well with Wild Arms. Despite Wild Arms being a bit more modern (old west to Fire Emblem's medieval) with some sci-fi elements and characters using guns, there are still characters who are known for using swords and magic. Later games in the Wild Arms series used something called the 'hex' system during battles. Multiple characters could stand on a single hexagon tile and use devastating combo attacks against an enemy and use group healing, but all characters would take damage if an enemy targeted their hex on it's turn, and vice versa. I think those combos and the more recent Pair-Up and Stances mechanics from Fire Emblem could work well together. Maybe even Rescue as well depending on how it's all implemented. IIRC, Wild Arms XF changed the combination arts of 4 and 5 to something that was based on character positioning, called formation arts. That could easily allow Fire Emblem's triangle attack to return as a possible formation. Ugh, thinking about it hurts because I know it will probably never happen, but it sounds so fun. Me too. I wonder how Adepts and Fire Emblem's magic users would work together. It could make for some interesting crossover lore. I don't think it matters. When it comes to games, never say never. I personally mentioned Fire Emblem x Pokemon because I want to see it happen regardless of how possible it actually is.

Fire Emblem x Wild Arms I don't know why, but a part of me would love to see this one. I don't think the lore between the two games would conflict much at all. I would also like to see what kind of gameplay the developers would come up with as long as the strategy elements are handled more by Intelligent Systems. XF's gameplay wasn't very good from my memory. I would also love to see a few Fire Emblem characters get fantasy wild west themed designs/alternate costumes. I second the notion of Fire Emblem x Pokemon despite Pokemon Conquest existing. Pokemon Conquest was fun but it needed some refining, and I would be super curious to see what Intelligent Systems would do with a Pokemon crossover.

The game having an avatar and the possibility of another localization company who's not 8-4 doesn't mean this game will turn out like Fates. This game looks to like it's shaping up to be completely different from many games we've experienced so far. It's fine to prefer the old games, but don't spoil potentially new Fire Emblem game for yourself either, especially before they've come out. I'm a bit nervous about the plot myself, but I'm going to wait and see. I'm going off unreliable sources so please take this next sentence with salt. You have to remember that Echoes was a remake and not a mainline game, which Fates and Awakening were, so the sales expectations for Echoes were probably different due to that. Still, I was under the impression that Echoes did well despite being a remake. My point is that it's flawed to use Echoes' sales numbers as a litmus test for the future of the Fire Emblem series. Honestly, I'm facing a similar concern that Three Houses may not be the Fire Emblem that I want either, but that's why I'm hoping for the best, preparing for the worst, and for the rest, it's not worth worrying about. If worst comes the worst, then the old games will always be there. Three Houses is not going to come out for a while so there's plenty of time for more reveals and shocking news.

I have a similar concern and I'm really hoping that the whole 'evil church' trope doesn't end up being the case for the story, or at least there's some kind of twist that makes it not that as the situation unfolds. It's old and I'm so tired of seeing it, and what I've read and seen so far about Three Houses is already discouraging. I was so hyped when I first saw the trailer screenshots and the characters. However, I'm going to wait around, try not to get too bummed out this early, and hope for the best. I don't care much for the moral grays in stories unless they're done well. I want a good story first.

I picked unlimited, but really I don't need things to be too free if that makes sense. One thing I liked about world map and grinding-friendly Fire Emblems is that they feel more forgiving. I can afford to misjudge and suddenly switch strategies without having to worry too much about resources or being unprepared for endgame. The pain of the EXP gain petering out in skirmishes is enough of a grinding con unless I'm support grinding or trying to squeeze in another precious level before I decide to promote someone. I don't mind limited resource games when they're balanced well enough to allow an indecisive person like me to have a little wiggle room, but otherwise I prefer the Fire Emblems that are a little more free, even if I never take full advantage of it such as reclassing. It's more enjoyable personally.

What is unit identity in this series exactly? Serious question. What I’m reading in this thread I always thought of as character identity, not unit identity. When I read the words ‘unit identity’ it makes me think of Pokemon or DOTA 2. Things like Sweepers, Gankers, Tanks, Walls, and hours in front of a monitor comparing stat sheets and possible builds. In my opinion, Fire Emblem is nowhere near that kind of meta (unless I'm that out of the loop) and class alone is pretty shallow in that case.

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I’m happy that I don’t have to actually preorder Ultra Sun to get Dusk Lycanroc, but on the other I’m dreading that Dusk Lycanroc is somehow going to be better than both Day and Night form. Dusk Lycanroc would’ve been a lot less of an annoying reveal for me if it was simply a new form specific to Ultra Sun and Moon that any Rockruff could evolve into, and simply had a more specific evolution requirement than usual like Sliggoo or Inkay.

That makes sense, but I still think that method is a little too strict with supports. This is an interesting discussion (that took me forever to get back to) but I'll leave things at that.

I apologize for not being clear about that. I didn’t mean for "favorite characters" to imply any playable character in the case of limited supports. I meant favorite characters out of who is available in the support pool. I actually like the ability to support everyone, but I understand the writing issues that come it. That’s why I’m willing to compromise on the amount of supports. That was bad wording on my part. I'm fine with personalities and variations as a result of that, but how many possible personalities should be available in the first place? Why should their personality carry so much weight if the avatar isn't the main character? I think the issue I’m having is by emphasizing personality so much is figuring if you want a mix and match preset character, or for the players to build their own character? Personality can be subjective, even in video games, which is another reason why I’m so against tying it to supports. If I entertain that support pools are going to be limited by a choice, then I’d rather have it connected to something more concrete such as how Fates used loyalty. (Haven’t played Fates so I can’t talk about it much.) Just because it's not recommended doesn’t mean someone isn’t going to try anyway. That’s fine, I simply don’t see personality locked supports as a good way to personalize the avatar or increase replay value. I am completely aware of and understand this. (Regarding the bolded part) Of course not. That’s not the only alternative. Supports can tackle a number of topics. It’s only up to Intelligent Systems whether or not to actually bother with more variety.

That’s a hard question to answer for me because I can see a lot of ways that the avatar can be implemented, and I wouldn’t be disappointed with too much. I think "what's best" should depend on the game itself. I'm probably going to end up repeating some other ideas already mentioned or sticking my foot in my mouth. If I had to make a list based on what I would personally like to see out of the avatar for the Switch game specifically, it's still hard, but maybe… - As another poster mentioned. I want the game to treat the avatar like a person. It would be nice to see choices backfire on me no matter what I pick. - For the avatar’s story role, I’m not too picky about it. I’d like to see an avatar who acts as the game’s narrator though. Also maybe the avatar character isn’t with the main lord at the start of the game, and you have to recruit your own character early on, or as part of a tutorial. (If you kill them it’s an instant ‘defeat' accompanied by some snark from the main lord.) - As for customization I’d like to some see skin color options, pleeeaase. That’s the only thing that really bothers me about it at the moment. - I’d prefer if classes were chosen at the start of the game and promotion went from there. I don’t mind having a special class (Tactician), but I don’t think it should be mandatory. - As for supporting, I'd like the S-support system to stay, but narrow down the amount of supports. I really don't see the point of the avatar getting special treatment support-wise, and I can only see myself managing about 3-5 chains per playthrough. I'd like to see the avatar have some normal support endings like other characters: getting married, fighting bandits with their best friend, etc. Honestly, I don't like the idea of restricting supports to personality choices one bit. Restricting supports to personality is a nice idea on paper, but in execution I imagine it being a small scale, avatar specific version of Blazing Sword’s 5 support per playthough system. I think it would be flawed because chaining personality to support options does lock players out of content. It forces people to possibly make multiple playthroughs for the sake of seeing all possible supports for only one character, their character, and it forces players to play a certain way if they want to support their favorites. Personally, it's seems like it’s there to be a hindrance and not add anything of value to the game. I think it might work better if the rate of support growths with specific characters were chained to personality traits instead of the support options themselves. This can imply in-game how certain characters feel toward your character based on their given personality instead of locking off supports altogether. I’d really prefer that if avatar supports are going to be limited, then just make them limited and the same regardless of personality.

To me, a remake should fix, or remove if necessary, what didn’t work while improving on what did. I think changes should be expected with remakes. They allow developers to re-tread old ground and re-imagine old ideas into something that’s potentially more functional and fun than what the original had. The "spirit" of the original should be kept, whatever that means to the developer if anything at all, but not at the expense of fixing bugs and story issues. Gameplay wise: improving balance, fixing exploits, and glitches should be priority. I don't mind new mechanics if it works with what’s already there or replaces a previously failed mechanic. Story wise: fixes to script errors, plot holes, and discontinuity are always welcome in my book. I don’t think new characters and story elements are always necessary to a remake, but I’m not against them if they positively enhance the story or help smooth over a story error from the original.

Ideally I'm in the "why not both" camp, but realistically I'd prefer branching promotions. I think it better accommodates for different playstyles than if units were confined to a single class line no matter what.

The thing about expectations is to keep them at a reasonable level. Best case scenario you end up pleasantly surprised, and worst case scenario it’s a bummer but you get over it. I generally expect a solid story out of Fire Emblem, and that's the attitude I'm going to try to maintain with whatever game comes next. A few cliches here, a mild twist there, and an ending that’s generally satisfying. Being ever the optimist, I think taking a low opinion of a story that hasn't happened yet doesn't really help anyone or anything. It risks killing enthusiasm and looking for confirmation bias (You see, I knew it would be bad!). Really, as long as the game is fun as a whole, story included, then I probably won’t be too disappointed with whatever Intelligent Systems comes up with.

Whoa, I can wait for Genealogy if it meant Binding Blade instead, the sequel to the famous first internationally localized Fire Emblem game that never officially made it outside Japan. I gave up hope years ago that I’d ever see it legitimately released in English. If Binding Blade ends up as an Echoes game I might be more tempted to sit through FE7 again. All the new art and potential for extended dialogue. Yes, please.