Aethereal

It's true. We're not worthy of being exposed to his greatness. Unless you're a TV trope user, of course.

If you lower hit all around to make accuracy matter more, you end up with percentages like in FE6, where axe users ran around with 50-60 hit all the time. Generally low hit percentages aren't well enjoyed, because it makes a lot of chapters too luck dependent, and that seems to be a pretty recurring complaint about FE6's gameplay.

Don't all brilliant twenty nine year olds live at their parents, refuse to work, and post about themselves on TV Tropes?

Dunked four timesand been dunked on like twenty. All downhill from here.

The problem here is that skill (generally) isn't a good enough stat for sword users, and they generally get less str and more skill than other classes. It's not that the weapons need to be standardized, it's that the stat skill needs to be brought up. Under Anouleth's suggestion it is brought up some, and it gives sword users a different niche than axe or lance users. If it was balanced well, you would have low damage-high crit machines, in sword users. Lance users would do moderate damage with a small crit boost, or at least solid accuracy. Lastly, axe users would be the powerhouses they are with mediocre hit. As long as they all had enemies they were better against (Sword users being better against sages, and axe users better against armors, for example) and had a fair share of those enemies, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine that sword users being well balanced. Another method of making skill better is having numbers like in FE6, where sword users were generally pretty good. However, that usually means really crappy hit rates for axe users, which is no fun. I doubt the bolded is true, or at least completely true. I'm not a WoW player myself, but my roommate is so I have some limited knowledge of the game. While I don't follow the specifics, my understanding of the game is that people just go for what will average out to the most damage. I would guess that the hit stat is just better than the damage stats just because of the coefficients. At least before you get as much as helps-Is there a way to get 100% hit? Or a point where it starts providing less of a difference, like in FE where you're given the average of two rolls for hits? Either way, my point is, if most units had 0 base hit, but skill provided 5 or 10 hit per stat, it would probably be much better than STR/Mag until you were at like, 90 hit. It's not just about the concept, it's about the other numbers involved. I hope that makes sense, and I honestly don't mean to sound condescending about it. I could very well be wrong after all, I don't play.

you love Aless. Sisters are bitches because...

Is that before or after calculating weapon crit, the crit you get from skill, and the passive that swordmasters get as a class?

First step: Make sure she can hear every one.

One change I would really enjoy is enemy speeds to be competent and consistent. It doesn't make sense to me that the slowest playable characters can double half the enemies. They eventually add in some fast ones (Fuck Cog of Destiny Valks.) so I guess that's no big deal.

This is awesome. My day just got so much better.

This is going to be the way I figure out character's age forever, thanks a lot.

Jaffar looks like a matured adult to me, but I guess that's just my take. And 16->19 isn't a change for most people. Some people grow and change later than others, but I've known a lot of people who basically stopped growing at 14-15, myself included.

My point was that you weren't giving FE9 enough credit. To elaborate, despite you making the point that FE9 handed you characters and items, they do so less than several (or at the least one) FEs you're praising. Are you saying FE9 rewards you worse specifically than 5? That doesn't necessarily make it unhealthy, or saying that it hands you characters. And the same criticism can be made to earlier games. Gaidens only exist in one of the games prior to FE6, FE9 not having it does not make it reward you less than those games. Additionally, ranks are cool and ranked runs are fun to try from time to time, but I'd rather have a gameplay related reward (BExp) than a pat on the back at the end of the game. This is not mentioning the fact that a lot of players may not even look at ranks, and most do appreciate more BExp. Edit: I also just don't like when people make statements that are incorrect, and so I corrected it. I don't particularly care for the BExp argument. It's not important to me. Saying that Fire Emblem is unhealthy may as well be the same thing. I personally think a game series is unhealthy if it does not address the flaws in previous sections of the series. Moreover, I think implementing new mechanics that have large flaws as well is a larger sign of an unhealthy series. Oftentimes these mechanics were also mechanics that make little or no sense, or weren't fun for a large part of the fan base. And the discussion revolving around wether or not other games have implemented a ton of new mechanics seems pretty irrelevant if that doesn't have any bearing on wether you think the games are good or not. Look, I get that you don't like playing games that don't have significantly different mechanics, and I'm sure you think it's dull or whatever. But personally, I just want a more refined game. To me it doesn't need to add in a bunch of features and mechanics, especially if they suck, to make it an interesting addition to the series. What it needs, for me, is to make the mechanics, features, and elements it has implemented in a new and interesting way. It also needs to fix up the old elements that weren't implemented as well. And any new mechanics that they can implement that are interesting, fun, aren't cumbersome, and are implemented well is just gravy. And, personally, I think Fire Emblem's generally done that. The series may have gone in a direction you don't like, but that doesn't make it unhealthy, or mean it isn't growing. It means that different fans and players want different things.

I did, but it's appreciated.

FE4's recruitment requirements are largely easier than FE9, and generally the extent of effort needed to get notable items/weapons (With the exception of something like 6) requires talking with a character that is on YOUR side, and you control, and is very easy to accomplish. And either way, this conversation doesn't say what is and isn't a good game; it may be for you, but it is not necessarily for others. I really enjoyed playing FE4&5, but there are obvious flaws with the games that aren't present in later ones that don't even necessarily relate to the mechanics of the game. Maybe for you a lot of the changes that aren't mechanic changes aren't a big deal, but they are for me. Seeing more balanced units relative to enemies, and relative to the rest of your units is awesome. Having enemies that I can engage in with strategies that don't involve "Stand back and draw in" or "Stick Holsety User/Shannan in their face" because of the sheer number of them is a plus. Ridiculous differences in move aren't fun if you like to use a slower unit, knowing full well that the mounted equivalent is just much better. This isn't a rip on FE4, because I honestly loved the game. But this idea that "FE6-12 don't have mechanic changes so they are automatically worse" is subjective, and from my perspective, 6, 7, and 10 are all better games for a lot of reasons outside of just mechanics. And that's not touching on supports that give each and every character a considerable amount of depth compared to their pre-FE6 counterparts. Or other story related things that I think are better later on. I just genuinely think there is more to "this game is better or worse than another" than the mechanics involved.

He's not my favorite playable character, but: Gheb trying to pick up Lyn, Florina, Rebecca, Isadora, Serra, etc.

And then Jeigan bashing will officially be sacrilegious. Once I'm done with college I'm gonna go fail at being a journalist somewhere in the Bay area. I'm probably taking a year~ off to travel with my girlfriend first, but that's kinda up in the air. In the meantime I'm trying to decide which UC to transfer to, with Berkley, LA, San Diego, and a few of the smaller schools basically off the list. Which means stressing out over rent, how we're gonna move shit, where we can stay that allows her dogs, which school will be best for me/us, etc. Whoo.

I'm a little confused. Nothing about any of the sprites in EN wouldn't fit in FE7, nor would they clash, and Lowen's sprite is no different. While every one else has already said that Arch doesn't have the resources for changes as miniscule as customs of the same characters, I don't think asking for those customs is anything but ridiculous when there are sprites that are already available that perfectly suit their characters. For the ones who have changed in some small ways (Like bulking up, and getting newer heavier armor, that also fits some one who is no longer a new recruit to pull a completely random example) they don't clash because they have some edits and others don't. Some people change in a few years, and others don't. Some things happen that warrant changes in the way you dress or which armor you would wear for some and not for others. A character like Eliwood, for instance, has a sprite that suits him perfectly fine in EN, whereas Lowen's or Rebecca's wouldn't. Know what else is funny? How Eliwood's hair stays the exact same length from the start of his year long journey to the end . Or how Hector's sprite from 17 years after you first meet him has minor changes to show aging, and is a direct edit from his original sprite, using the exact same angle, and posture. The only difference: Hector's character has aged enough from 16->33 that he warrants those minor edits, like a normal person would. Lowen from late teens to early twenties would probably not have a significant change in physical features, which people have already pointed out.

Exactly. And no one says a thing about FE10 characters. And moreover, FE12 has a ridiculous amount of mugs from FE11 that seem like they just touched up before putting them in. To give, what I think, is a pretty good parallel to Lowen, here's Abel with a 2 year gap between FE11 and 12, one less than EN: Fe11 Abel, FE12. Comparing them side by side, there was a slight angle change, one is slightly brighter than the other, and in 12, Abel has a slight frown compared to a completely blank expression. But no one is clamoring about this, yet Arch and ALS are doing a poor job showing aging? They're modifying the characters more than IS does in order to show changes in position or age. I don't understand why this conversation is even happening :/

This made me laugh so hard and brought back so many memories. You are the winner.

Wait, I'm confused on the aging bit. Changing his haircut is taking away the only physical distinguishing feature we have on the guy. Not only that, it's a very unique one, there aren't any other FE characters that I'm aware of that have hair anything like that. Changing that seems like you're changing Lowen entirely. As far as facial expression, what would you change Lowen's expression too? The dude's an insecure but determined soldier, who's a bit awkward. That odd frown is a fitting default expression. I don't think either of these two factors would change in the course of 3 years, and while some people develop and change a lot from their late teens to early twenties, Lowen does not seem like the type that might. He's perfectly mature as is, so a more mature demeanor isn't necessary, He's also not some one to have gone through some sort of enlightenment, the way Karel had, or anything of the sort. After the war, Lowen stays in service, living a similar life to the one he had before: that of a soldier. Obviously there will be some minor changes, as very few people are perfectly stagnant for very long times, but I don't think Lowen would have been in for some drastic changes that would warrant a change in his default facial expression, or his signature haircut.

I've always looked at him as at least being 17. Sain and Kent are guessed to be in their 20s, and they don't seem particularly older. That being the case, I know a lot of people who look basically the same as they do when they went from their late teens to early twenties.

This is only a problem in that Bishops are a bad class, not that troubadours/valks are too good. Bishops generally have really low movement, overkill resistance, and a weak weapon type. Making it worse, a lot of bishops promote from staff-locked tier 1 classes, so will be behind in level, and have bad weapon ranks. This isn't always true, but the exceptions to the rule are generally not bad units. I feel this would make all the mounts uncomfortable. And me.

I don't want to enter the argument/conversation, but I think you should give FE4 a try before being upset with these two points in particular. I'm not as big of a fan of FE4 as I am of some of the other games, but the gold system is very unique, and with the way that weapons/staves/rings in game are traded (through the shop), the gold system is not only necessary, but interesting, and makes you think about gold more than an average FE. The big maps make for very different strategies, particularly just that nothing is indoor and there are very few places that you can use terrain to keep yourself from being attacked on one side. It's different not in a blatantly inferior way, just in a very different way. I had the same thoughts going into FE4, and by the time I'd gotten to the second generation I was pleasantly surprised. This is one of the few times I think don't knock it 'till you've tried it is true.