[Greil (FE9) or Jeralt (FE16)]

Both are ultimately plot devices who fill the "father figure who dies" archetype. But I went for Greil as he has more of a narrative impact.

[What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?]

39 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Y'know I think I agree with this overall. Rewind has encouraged me to be a lazier FE player and I'll probably find the game less long-term satisfying from a gameplay perspective than some of the others as a result. I think I'm going to have to start forcing myself not to use it, but as you mentioned there are some things you really need to learn about the game first. I really like Three Houses so it'll be interesting to see how it holds up in no-rewind land.

Ironically the FE game which would benefit from rewind the most to my mind is FEH, since there's no RNG to abuse and of course it has a touchscreen interface where misclicks (the main thing I would really like rewind for) are more common. But it's also the only FE from the last three years not to have it.

Agreed on the comments about Conquest being beautifully designed and giving you the needed information to succeed on a classic no-rewind difficulty.

As a die-hard ironman player, I really dislike the idea and inclusion of rewind. Casual mode already exists for easing people into the series, and in my opinion classic mode should be reserved for those who want the challenge of permadeath. It makes everything feel cheap and meaningless, and encourages reckless play. I'm totally fine with Casual Mode, but rewind really irritates me. And it's much harder to ignore, too.

Anyway, some opinions of my own:
 

•  Three houses is the weakest Fire Emblem entry thus far. The gameplay is repetitive, and the map design is the worst in the series, mostly due to map overuse and the lack of objective variation. The story is also incredibly weak, as while part 1 offers a passable setup, part 2 just throws it all out of a 100th floor window, and I'd honestly consider it the worst JRPG story I've ever encountered. I also found the characters to be very unlikeable, and extremely one note. Character backstory was insufficient in patching this up too, I found. The monastery padding I found extremely obnoxious, and felt like meaningless filler outside of the first couple of visits. The choosing your own path gimmick I also did not enjoy, as map reuse and monastery padding made playing the game an absolute chore and made each playthrough seem the exact same. Honestly, the only thing I liked about it was the music, which even then got old once you realised there were only 7-8 tracks which were reused across all paths. Even the graphics didn't look great when compared to other Switch games, as the game had the overall look of an early Wii U game.
•  I enjoy desert maps. They are a nice change of pace, allowing mages to become your most mobile units rather than the usual cavalry-dominated gameplay of other maps, and provide a unique challenge in reaching the hidden item locations. Also, lots have good map themes.
•  Support conversations are possibly my least favorite aspect of Fire Emblem. They always seemed quite jarring to me when compared to the main story, and character quirks tend to annoy rather than entertain. While some do offer character backstory, I'd rather learn about this in Base Conversations, Talk Conversations (like in FE4), or even developer interviews and articles. I'd quite like for future Fire Emblem games to replace support conversations with base and talk conversations instead.

[I want another villain like Grima*3H spoilers*]

I agree with both sides of this argument.

In my opinion, Three Houses was sorely lacking in the villain department. Edelgard and Rhea were inconsistent at best, and confusingly written. It felt like a failed attempt at grey morality which honestly bored me to tears. Just because you have a character constantly go on about how "ruthless" they are, doesn't mean it's grey morality. Likewise, giving faces to the enemies you face does not make their actions any worse. It would be as if Archanea saga had a prologue showing all the generic bosses at school together being happy school friends. It's unlikely that these people were born generic evil villains, is it not? But now with this prologue, would Marth's actions be considered "wrong" or "morally grey"? For another example, take Thracia 776. Many of the bosses there are reluctant to fight and only forced to do what they do by House Friege and the Empire. But does that make Leif "morally grey"? 

And then you have the generic evil villains, Nemesis and TWSITD, who honestly had so little story presence you wonder why they were even there to begin with. Not to mention TWSITD feeling completely out of place for... other reasons. Grima and even Garon at least had presence. TWSITD only seemed to exist to shove more FE4 references down your throat and to give Byleth some reason to stick with Rhea.

I've seen many compare Edelgard to Arvis, and this comparison doesn't really make sense to me. See, unlike Edelgard, Arvis isn't pushed as a main villain at all. In Generation 2 he isn't really even an antagonist at all. He has actual reason to team up with the generic evil cult (being blackmailed by Manfroy, who threatens to reveal his Loptyr bloodline if he doesn't cooperate). Edelgard has an entire empire already at her command (whereas Arvis gets his later and even then is hardly in control), so why would she need this assistance? Comparing her to Rudolf I suppose is a more apt comparison, since both are quite nonsensical in their methods. Still, neither Arvis nor Rudolf are the main villains of their stories, and would not work on their own without being just evil characters with no moral grey.

Anyway, back to the point at hand. Three Houses, in my opinion, would have been a much better narrative if they instead had a larger villain behind the schemes. I'm thinking a Sephiran, Manfroy, or Gharnef. Someone secretly manipulating things behind the scenes. That way, the story could have focused, as it was mentioned earlier, on a divided front of antiheroes having to team up to fight a big bad. This, to me, would have been a much more compelling narrative than what we ended up with. 

So, to conclude, I think Fire Emblem stories need both kind of villain. The morally grey type, such as Naesala, Michalis etc. but also the big bads, like Loptyr, Grima, Ashnard etc. Morally grey big bads are difficult to pull off, and Fire Emblem has shown time and time again that it's strength are main villains who are just some ancient evil lurking in the background, scheming. Does this make them a bad character? Not necessarily. It's merely a narrative role, hardly character-defining.

Balance is key.

 

[Hi!]

Hello, I'm Fire Brand. Pleased to meet you all.

I've been lurking here for a while, but decided to finally create an account. 

[Favourite Map Type/Objective]

Favorite objective: Escape. In particular, escape all. It's a nice challenge and change of pace, as it's such a rarely seen objective. 

Map: Doorway to Destiny (FE4). 

Games played: All except FE1 and FE2