hi_scroes

This is Travant in Generation 2, where all of his schemes have come up short and his sins and failures are haunting him. I think Travant must have been pretty well respected in Generation 1 because his hatred of Leonster is probably shared by most of the people of Thracia. But he went too far, and lost the people's respect -- meaning he is probably pretty hated by the time Seliph shows up. Hannibal himself summarizes nicely: Lewyn even says the soldiers are still loyal to Travant because they genuinely think he can elevate Thracia through violence, even though Hannibal and the general populace have soured on this strategy. I mean, Travant literally crushed Leonster and still didn't manage to liberate Thracia -- of course the people have lost trust in him. But he only rules through fear at the end of his rope, and was probably respected by his people at first, which is why he's such an interesting character.

Part of my hesitancy with a potential FE4 remake is that the music is kind of inevitably not going to get it right. So many special little sounds and effects that will be drowned out in an epic opera redo. I just think back to the Demons' Souls remake where all of the music was, for the most part, remarkably faithful to the original tracks but with a grander scale and more epic instrumentation -- and it totally killed the vibe put forward by the original, leaving this kind of uneven and artificial feel to the game (especially considering the painstaking efforts taken to recreate most of the mechanics). I don't know how the FE4 remake would be handled, but if they dare to touch the soundtrack they better significantly alter the rest of the game to match.

How do you sort something like Lewyn being revived by Forseti into that? I think the "inheritance of will" stuff sounds more like the weapons form a connection between the user and some incorporeal version of the dragon (like a ghost), rather than simply creating a unique clone of the original dragon's mind. If it shouldn't be read as a pact, then why does Lewyn continue to behave strangely after he no longer has the book? If it's merely a fraction of the dragon's will and power, then why does Loptous (speaking through Julius) say that Naga foiled his plans when Julia kills him, while he only responds to Seliph when Seliph kills him? Generally, it feels more like we're supposed to take these echoes as "the dragons themselves," at least to some degree. And not only that, but since it looks like Forseti manifested and acted when Lewyn dies, it seems that the ghost-like versions of the dragons can do certain things. It shouldn't be a stretch to imagine ghosts affecting the world in Jugdral -- Sigurd and Deirdre give a ring to Seliph after talking to him, for example. Kaga's explanation (or at least how it's framed here) especially makes no sense in terms of what happens in FE5, but that's a normal kind of discrepancy when creating a new work. But it's worth keeping in mind that FE5 literally states that a character made a pact with dragons, which is far removed from the idea of them automatically and distantly imbuing will. Really the only disagreement I have is the suggestion that all of the dragons and "possessions" we see in FE4 are just brainwashes of sorts, because we see the dragons do things outside of what the wielders do. If that's not what's being suggested, then I'm confused on what an "echo" or "essence" is supposed to imply -- seems it either means a "blueprint" of a completely and utterly dead dragon being placed in a person, or an actual connection with the spiritual, ghost-like remains of a dragon.

It's still significant to me that the benefit Loptous confers is "invisible" in terms of stats and abilities, as though it's an effect beyond the "rules" that everyone else has to abide by. Gair wanted the tome to have power beyond everyone else but even though he obtained that power, it's evil and so can't be the kind of good, honest power that Naga would provide. Definitely buy that the +5 Res is to block staves but it's also worth considering the effect of seeing that measly stat bonus when you check Julius' stat screen vs. when you check Julia's -- the difference makes it seem like Naga is just straight up more legitimate than whatever weirdness Loptous is doing. Valkyrie is absolutely described in terms of "fate," or at least quintessence, when Claud introduces it. Tailtiu cuts him off, but he basically says that "if someone died before their fate -> Valkyrie works" and "if someone died when they were fated to -> Valkyrie doesn't work." It's why characters like Eldigan can't be revived even though Sigurd would have access to their body and Valkyrie -- Eldigan was just supposed to die around that time, his quintessence ran out. Obviously this complicates the discussion a bunch because "fate," in vague terms, is not something you should be able to die before. But I think it's a useful term when thinking about quintessence in Jugdral because Claud's momentary description of it suggests that there is some overruling power that determines destiny, even if that power can be played around with. That potential for playing is why a discussion like this is possible, but I just like to keep these more fatal powers in mind for such discussions -- that is to say, if someone had successfully assassinated Julius, how might fate be altered in Jugdral, or how might events transpire anyways to enforce the outcomes we see in FE4? If you're not familiar with Thracia 776, that game is where geasa are first directly mentioned. But they're still useful for exploring FE4 since we see something similar with Forseti, and maybe Loptous and Naga. People have framed the "possessions" as "echoes" overruling people's minds but I think it's very interesting that Lewyn's revival by Forseti closely parallels the geas seen in Thracia 776 -- Forseti is clearly doing something to Lewyn, not just passively transferring some will. A "geas" in general refers to a type of pact/cure seen in Irish mythology that often looks something like "you can have x impossible ability, but if y happens, then x is revoked," and it typically amounts to a foretelling that someone will do y and thus lose x, x usually being "you will never die." If you've ever read Shakespeare's Macbeth, then the prediction made by the witches in that play is kind of like a geas. This isn't exactly how geasa appear in FE4, but it's helpful to know their origins are rooted in fate and destiny. I bring it up because Lewyn's revival seems to constitute a geas or pact with Forseti to the tune of "you will survive your death, but you have to abandon your past and guide Seliph," and potentially "you have to let me, Forseti, possess you." FE4's use of geas basically amounts to a pact made so that someone can avoid their death in exchange for some taboo or requirement being placed upon them. Since Forseti seems to directly manipulate Lewyn to a significant degree after his revival, I'd also argue that an FE4 geas can allow a dragon to influence a human's mind -- even when Lewyn is no longer holding Forseti, he still seems to be under Forseti's influence. This may or may not connect to the feeling Julia and Julius get when wielding their respective tomes. Either way, the geasa can be described as involving "fate" because they let dragons manipulate quintessence to an even greater degree than Valkyrie alone can, as evidenced by the fact that both Lewyn's revival and the FE5 geas impose certain limitations whereas Valkyrie just revives, no strings attached. Forseti even uses Valkyrie to revive Lewyn (as revealed in an opening cutscene) but the strange pseudo-possession is more like the geas we see in FE5 than anything else -- there's no other precedent for a dragon possessing someone when they don't have their Holy Weapon on hand. So, since the geas are drawn from fatal mythology, and they seem to allow people to avoid a fate they would otherwise suffer, I think it's safe to say there is some version of "fate" in FE4, even if it's ultimately a lot more flexible than one would typically assume of fate.

Not exactly, but Valkyrie's use of quintessence and the geasa in general all play with fate. It's up to interpretation, but to me it's no stretch to say the dragons are shown to have some influence over human fate. But I should do a longer writeup of what I think. Have you considered that this is true of every work of fiction ever produced? A story can only contain what it contains, it can't invent a new ending for itself. Even if "fate" is not part of a narrative proper, every story is necessarily limited. Some stories play with this idea and some do not, but it's true for all of them. But you're in luck. At the start of Chapter 6, Lewyn specifically says that fate doesn't exist. Yet it's interesting that Lewyn is also the one who, whether through coincidence or not, assembles everything perfectly for Seliph to be able to win. It's Lewyn who commands Seliph to carry on with his campaign, even when there doesn't seem to be any clear point to his actions like when Thracia is conquered or Ishtore is killed. And it's Lewyn who justifies his advice with "you'll understand someday, Seliph," only for his final explanation to be that the dragons descended upon Jugdral to alter fate and that Lewyn himself may or may not have been a dragon all along. I think it's worth considering the degree to which Lewyn and Forseti actually do manipulate the story of FE4, and how their manipulations might have affected the plot in the same way "fate" might have. Perhaps Lewyn says fate doesn't exist because he himself is the one who, through divine knowledge, sets up the story -- no prophecy needed, just the influence of the ghost of a dragon.

That's an interesting perspective. Makes sense because Julius has Nihil, which negates effective damage in FE4 and would therefore make it impossible to actually have Naga do traditional effective damage against Julius. And Julius has to have Nihil because it's part of what makes him impossible to deal damage to, so I can buy Kaga wanting to portray effective damage through another method. I usually interpret the Naga tome on a narrative level as negating the "cheating" of the Loptous tome. Loptous actually sucks in relation to the other holy weapons, it only provides a measly bonus of +5 Res. Conversely, Naga gives +20 Skill, +20 Speed, +20 Defense and +20 Resistance, a net bonus of +80 that's higher than any other holy weapon and wayyy higher than Loptous. It can turn a low-level Julia into one of your best units overall, not just for the Julius fight. It's like Naga confers an "honest" power based on actual stats. Loptous, on the other hand, only confers a "cheating" power that gives just a sliver of Res alongside a manipulative effect, symbolizing how evil and unnatural the tome is.

Would love to see a design for Gair I and XVII from FE4 lore.

Manfroy isn't a once-in-a-lifetime evil power, he just happens to be in charge. In other words, I see no reason that someone wouldn't be able to take his place. The Loptrian faith is centered around gaining the power of Loptous for oneself because that power is the power to rule over everyone else -- with it, you are effectively invincible and perhaps even gain the persuasive abilities Tine describes. You can reasonably expect that power to be appealing to most people's base desires, especially if they've been persecuted into living in a desert temple for over 100 years. So I think it makes sense to expect further Loptrian activity even if Manfroy were assassinated -- it's not like he's brainwashing his own Loptrians into the religion. It's difficult for me to discuss "what would happen if Manfroy just left the Loptous tome in his other pants" because I don't think any of the dragons in FE4 would allow such insignificant things to disrupt their grand plans. We can see the dragons manipulate fate in a handful of ways but most clearly through the geasa they impose on people. In the case of Lewyn and (presumably) Brigid, the dragons manipulate quintessence and bring the dead back to life on some strange, esoteric terms. So basically we know that the good dragons can change fate to their liking, or at least they can get involved in events in an esoteric fashion in order to ensure the fate they desire plays out. Esoteric is a good word for Loptous' behaviour too. His last words seem like a generic "I'm evil and will always win!" type deal, but they also do imply that Loptous is an eternal, intangible presence in the world. Perhaps this presence can manipulate events subtly to bring the book to Julius no matter how far away it goes (even if it doesn't make realistic sense). So to me it seems like Loptous' influence would bring his tome to where it needs to be as long as there are Loptrians in the world to carry it around, again meaning that Manfroy isn't vital to the plan. Even if it was at the bottom of the ocean, it just makes more sense to me to see it as a cursed object that will always find its way home through esoteric means. Not having major-blooded individuals seems like more of a pressing concern for everyone in Jugdral including the divine dragons; perhaps everyone is already aware that trying to destroy or hide the book simply isn't going to be effective against a force like Loptous, and so they correctly focus on the people that could wield it instead. So I guess it's just hard for me to think too much about a world where the book doesn't reach Julius because it's such a fated event. The mistake wasn't giving Julius the book, it was giving Julius major Loptous blood, and so blood is the only thing that needs to be lost to correct the mistake.

Presumably the tome can't be entirely destroyed. Without the tome, Julius would have been a very different person, of course. The way I understand Loptous is that he places a geas of sorts on someone wielding the tome with major blood. This geas exchanges some (but not all) of the person's self-control and identity to be replaced with desires and behavior that benefit Loptous' general hatred for humanity, in exchange for the overwhelming power of the tome. So while I don't think Julius is Loptous per se, he's certainly totally given over to Loptous' will once he gets the book. If he were to not get the book, Julius would eventually inherit the throne as his original self. But I don't think this necessarily saves Jugdral. The Loptrians represent an institutional problem, not just a magical one. Child hunts and slavery (I think) occur under Arvis' rule, even if Julius was the real power at that point. What this means is that Jugdral would still be heavily damaged even if Julius somehow didn't get the book, because people like Travant, Hilda, the Dozels etc. are still around and allying with Loptrians to gain power. As such, there's not much Julius could really do in the way of reform. In fact, it's possible he would be sheltered from his own heritage, despite his prominent major blood mark (presumably that's what's on his forehead). If he were told, there's still not much he could do since he is not even the actual emperor. The only thing he could do is defect to the Liberation Army, but as we see with Ishtar, that's not necessarily an easy choice even for the best of people. All of this is underpinned by the fact that the whole existence of the Loptrian Church is centered around producing a major blooded individual who then gets handed the Loptous tome. It would be really embarrassing if they just... lost it (though as we see with Kutuzov, that's not an impossibility).

Correct of course. However I think it's worth considering "Lands Sword" as meaning something like "Landholdings Sword." I think the idea is something to tie in with the Nordions' royal status. That's the only way I can justify "Lands"; Land's Sword or Land Sword make so much more sense if trying to convey that this is a sword with the power of the Earth. "Lands," on the other hand, has connotations of dominion, kingdom, ownership etc.. 大地 also shows up in 大地主 (big landholder), which doesn't really make sense since the root is 地主 (landlord) and therefore the reading is totally different but alas, it's the only way I can make sense of "Lands." Basically, when Nanna saps your HP, she's taxing you (haha). A potential motivation for the change would be to differentiate the Earth Sword from the Fire, Wind, Light, and Thunder Swords. There are Fire, Wind, Light, and Thunder tomes, but no Earth tome in Jugdral. So maybe the idea is to not make people think a corresponding Earth tome exists. But this causes an issue because even though there's no Earth tome, there is an Earth affinity of sorts in Jugdral -- in Thracia 776 Chapter 22, Leif makes reference to the "Earth Goddess Ethnia (大地母神). Are they really gonna try and translate that as "Lands Goddess Ethnia"? I don't think so, but they translated 大地 as "lands" here, so the precedent is "lands." A characteristically bold move from the geniuses on the localizing team!

The same could be said for direct sequels, and actually I'd argue that modern media production directly allows for out-of-order approaches to everything since it's economically wise to have sequels be enjoyable regardless of whether or not the audience is familiar with the original. But I think it's safe to say that this approach, while not invalidating the experiences of those who use it, can also dampen the effect of stories. You can never get back the experience of not knowing what's going to happen. This is true for all modern media franchises, but video games are especially relevant since participation is so important to them. It's not just the story that can be spoiled -- level design, mechanics, graphics, music can all be "spoiled" as well by playing games out of order. I know it sounds silly but I stand by it -- just look at Jotari's example of how someone could be "spoiled" on Metroid's gameplay. And since the vast majority of people approach series out-of-order, there have been some side effects in fan discussion. For one, I think it's nearly a truism at this point that "Seliph is a generic lord character" -- I saw this expressed multiple times in a recent thread. But in the context of FE4 as the sequel to FE1-3, this is an absurd statement. Seliph's cutscene dialogue is strikingly different from Marth's (who must be the prototype/genre-defining FE lord, as he is the first); Seliph is unsure, unfocused, and in constant need of guidance even though he hates the empire whereas Marth is typically confident and focused. So it's odd to me that Seliph is often spun as a "return to form" when he is so unlike the lords that preceded him. My theory for why this happens is that, in comparison to modern FE lords, Seliph's story is not nearly as personal -- we rarely get into Seliph's mind and he never suffers major losses (aside from the obvious one, which he does not directly react to), which is wildly different from your Edelgards or Dimitris. So when people approach Seliph with the context of modern lords, he doesn't seem so unique since he never goes to the extremes that modern characters do. But this is because Edelgard, Chrom, Roy, Leif, etc. are all reactions to these past series developments. It's like being spoiled -- Seliph is significant as a reaction to FE1-3, but he seems insignificant in the context of what "an FE lord" will eventually become, and the latter mentality produces this odd impression of the character (not to say you have to like Seliph, you don't). This isn't to say that the writing has been getting better or worse over time, just that new writing definitely draws upon old writing in the same way that a sequel draws upon the events of the original. And I also want to reaffirm that, for the purpose of enjoyment, you can do whatever you like and I can't judge you -- I instead want to advocate for this method which helps to navigate modern media, since I have fun approaching series like this. The very concept of a "media series" is kind of a novel idea and people are still getting used to it, and they can be left confused if they approach a series in a way that the authors couldn't have anticipated -- this confusion can be assuaged if you try to figure out what the authors were anticipating, what they were drawing from as they wrote. Of course this can still be figured out afterwards as you said, but it's straightforward (and fun!) to "accompany the development of things," and if you have the opportunity to do, it's worth taking it. Post is already too overlong but I should also acknowledge that some people just can't get into retro games, to which I say... more for me 😁

You're right that MGS isn't super reliant on the minutiae of MG, but they're still important to play for another reason: playing them makes them events and experiences for you, the player. It's one thing to hear that Solid Snake defeated Big Boss, it's another thing to have actually been the one to pull off that extremely significant feat and see it echoed throughout the franchise. This is getting into more abstract thoughts about video games but toying with the character-player barrier is of course something MGS loves to do. In terms of enjoyment, you can obviously just get by with a summary, but just about anything can be enjoyed in any way if that's all we're after. The Metal Gears are also neat to play specifically because they're so clearly rebooted in Solid (heck MG2 is already a nigh-remake of MG1, and MGS2 continues that pattern on a different level). Seeing how things are repurposed and refashioned is part of the fun. And the games are just really good on their own, anyways! Love the soundtracks. Tying back to FE, the idea of sequels playing with prior entries is also definitely present. FE4 is interesting in part because it's such a departure in both plot and gameplay from FE1-3; 3 Houses and even Awakening would have been 100x less interesting if I didn't have the context of FE4. It's loose, but it still all ties together in a delightful way, and it's worth at least offering that experience to newcomers, especially since there's such a strong stream of rhetoric specifically opposing this sort of play order (though again, I am not convinced that many people abide by recommended play orders).

Definitely still don't start with Metal Gear NES cuz it sucks!!!! It's a truncated port of the MSX2 original, developed without the input of the original creator. Metal Gear for the MSX2 is the actual starting point, available as part of one of the releases of Metal Gear Solid 3. The reason for this is that Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 are genuinely important entries that complete the franchise; without them, you're missing context for so much in the plot, even if you don't realize it. The same isn't exactly true for FE (though I would argue the Kaga games do have this), but it definitely is true with regards to the development of gameplay mechanics and themes across the franchise. Devs always base a new game off the old one, even if the plot isn't a direct continuation, so it makes sense to also have that original in mind when you play any sort of continuation. And yeah it's obviously true that not everyone wants to play Fire Emblem 1. But if someone wants to get into the series, I don't think they should really need to be coaxed into it with the scientifically determined optimal starting game, they should just play the games that look cool and are fun to them. If they want the easiest route to "understanding" the series, starting at the start is best, but I totally admit that I'm in the minority of people that get a lot of fun out of approaching things like that nowadays (and while I've done it for other series, I obviously didn't for FE). I guess I just kind of "don't get it" when it comes to recommended starts, I don't think they serve that many people. I tried to make use of flowcharts for bands back in the day, but I'd always get hung up on either listening to everything they made in order or just picking cool album arts and chucking the flowchart in the garbage.

It's definitely not as bad as people make it out to be imo. It works for what the game is, if we had FE1 menus in Fates then that would be a disaster, but for FE1 everything you really need to regularly do is easy enough to do (unskippable enemy phase is the only really frustrating bit, especially when you get stuck watching ten enemy units all decide to Wait, but even then it's tolerable). Honestly, FE1's menu jank is really only that bad if you're used to modern snappy menus, which is just another reason I'd at least float the idea of playing FE1 first. It's just like Metal Gear, where if you try to go by in-universe timeline order you'll be on the world's cruelest rollercoaster of QOL, going from MGSV to Metal Gear (but Metal Gear's plot is also wayyy more reliant on release order than FE, so it's easier to recommend).

"Recommended first title" is kind of a silly concept to me. It's universally impossible for a game released after the first title to suddenly become the "better first title," because the earlier games weren't made with the later games in mind while the reverse is presumably always true. For all franchises, it's simply true that starting from the start is the "best" way because it's the way dictated by the law of time; these games were assembled in a chronological order, so the best way to gather information from the series is to start at the beginning, so you can see how subsequent entries evolve and recall past developments. I don't like to call it the "best" way because that implies others' play orders were invalid (which is wrong), but at the same time I think it's the only order that makes "objective sense," which is another really provocative term but I hope you can get my meaning. However, I can acknowledge that "what's the recommended start to the franchise?" usually means "I want a fun game to play (that isn't a direct sequel)." There's nothing at all wrong with this approach but I don't really see the need to standardize recommended first entries, since everyone has different tastes. In this situation it's probably just best to look at pictures and promotions of the games and decide on the one that looks the coolest to you. FE8 is often given as the best start but I bounced right off of that one, FE4 was more my jam and I didn't even have a particular fondness for retro games when I played it.

It's kind of just the way things go with games. Every fighting game series, for example, has a similar trend where every new game is a sinful travesty that betrays the fandom, but then the new new game comes out and the old new game is looked back on fondly. Not to say that complaints of this nature aren't justified (people don't just make things up, generally speaking), but it is interesting to watch how often people will reminisce about the good old days once a new game releases. Maybe it's not so much nostalgia for the game but nostalgia for when it released; the past always has warm sepia tones, and so when people return to these games that they once reviled, they're reminded of the little things they did like at that point in their life and they wind up feeling more emotionally connected than they expected. Nostalgia like that comes easily for Fates, as I think a lot of the motivation for the reevaluation just comes from how plainly cool the game is. Yeah there's plenty of weird and uninteresting bits in it (I myself can't bring myself to beat Conquest's story, which I find a slog), but overall "knights vs. ninjas" is the Ol' Reliable of coolness and Fates relishes in it. Every unit, including the NPCs, have awesome designs and they bring the world to life, and the intricate mechanics let the numbers get big which makes you feel all the more powerful and cooler. You can build your own castle, you can marry your pick of attractive one-man-armies, you can visit other players and fight them... it really does have all you need to make the player feel cool, and "feeling cool" is a very specific and hard-to-hit emotion. Even though I have no desire to go back and beat Fates, there are so many cool aspects to the games that I can't help but feel a fondness for them. It feels like this has kind of happened to every game since Fates, too. I've yet to beat SoV but it felt like all of these games were marketed as "realistic" struggles between two morally neutral forces, and in the end that's not really what they were (3 Houses being the closest to that). At the very least, that's what people wind up expecting, so when that inevitably ends up not quite being the case, people are upset. I know that's what happened to me.

I'm not sure whether this is my own original idea or if I'm riffing off of someone else's, but I have some thoughts about a turnwheel-type mechanic. I think some games have similar mechanics presented in a "storybook" way, like it's framed as one character misremembering events when the player loses and so they have to rewrite it. I think that would work pretty well for FE4's epic scale. I think it would also allow the devs to do some stuff they might not easily justify otherwise, like having DLC/unlockable campaigns where you could do some stuff that people want, like having Thracia units. It's just a story after all, no reason a scribe couldn't just say "and Marty was also there" when recording the Final Holy War. But a more impactful way to use this would be to have the mysterious scribe be an actual character; specifically, Oifey. All that would be needed is a soft-death for Oifey if he dies in the Second Generation, à la Frederick. I feel it fits his character, making him a dedicated knight recording the story of Sigurd and Seliph. And if they were to add some sort of DLC/unlockable map for an alternate ending to the Battle of Belhalla, it would be like Oifey is writing what he wished happened instead of what happened in reality ;-; I should probably just write my own story/game but I think this would be one of the only ways I'd be happy with a whole turnwheel in Genealogy.

Fair enough if people don't think Seliph is very well written, but for the sake of this topic, the more interesting question is whether or not he would be significantly altered for a remake. And in my view, there's no real room to change him, because it would conflict with what he does in the plot. He can't be made more assertive or determined than he already is, because his role is to be guided by a higher power into retreading his father's legacy. And he can't be made meeker or weaker because that would conflict with his role as leader -- while I call him a "figurehead," it's an imperfect term because he does have plenty of individual strength, even if he starts out weak in Gen 2. To me, it's this mix of traits that makes Seliph interesting, and since these traits are defined by major events in the story there's no easy way to alter them. Perhaps a remake can interpolate stuff like Seliph's relationships with other characters, his view on Jugdral society, his favourite breed of dog, etc. etc. but his core is that he's someone who knows that he has shoes to fill and is trying his best to do so, while in reality the role he has to play is vastly bigger than he (initially) understands. In Thracia 776, Leif is chewed out by August specifically for being a sheltered and provided-for prince in spite of his fugitive upbringing. Leif is more hotheaded than Seliph (which is why Leif's plans often end disastrously), but neither of them really ever lived in true poverty or brutality. Seliph had an even easier upbringing being provided for by Edain in Tirnanog, with the start of Chapter 6 seemingly being the first time they've actually been under direct threat. He doesn't even know the child hunts are real. It only makes sense for him to be a little aloof.

Regardless of whether Alm's character was significantly changed or not, there's no reason for them to do so in an FE4 remake. The simple reason is that it would be so much work to write a new story where Sigurd gets away scot-free with everything. Everything in Chapter 3 and onwards is 100% predicated on Sigurd making mistakes; to rewrite him as a wise and faultless hero would require you to replace a full quarter of the game, even if you get to the same ending somehow. It's much easier to just follow the basic path set by FE4's story. The only problem I can envision would be the increased amount of writing. Modern FE loves to dwell on character traits, and it doesn't always play out so well; see any given Reddit post about Bernadetta to find a complaint about how she got annoying after 50-odd support conversations of essentially the same material. Putting Sigurd through the Flanderize-o-Matic 3000 (otherwise known as the support conversation system) has a chance to result in the same effect. Sigurd has a really clear and defined character thanks to FE4's writing, but I can see that being muddied by even an earnest attempt to write supports for him. This is a common complaint for the game but I really think people just need to think about Seliph differently. For one reason or another, there is a public perception that Seliph is the standard FE lord to contrast Sigurd's non-standard arc (you can see pretty much exactly this stance earlier in the topic). But really, it's Sigurd who's the standard holy knight, as people have already said -- instead, it's Seliph who's weird. If the "standard FE lord" is taken to mean "a deposed royal who always knows what to do," as Marth and Alm are often considered to be, then Seliph doesn't fit very well; he's deposed, but he does not know what he's doing on a grand scale, and he is basically just doing what Lewyn says in order to gather public support and win the day. He can deliver one-liners to dastardly imperials just fine, sure. But Lewyn immediately begins to manipulate his arc; at the end of Chapter 6 it's Lewyn, not Seliph, who knows just how evil the Loptyrians are, and it's also Lewyn who decides to press the revolution further into Aed. Really, it seems like Seliph thought he might have just been able to kick the Empire out of Isaach and call it a day; it's what his father thought he could do with Verdane, after all. He needs Lewyn to push him forward into becoming a true leader, and even then he's not the greatest swordsman in the land or anything, he just happens to be the son of Deirdre. There's a funny line after Isaach is retaken where Lewyn asks Seliph if he knows the world is at a turning point and Seliph just goes "uhh... no?" -- not a very inspiring line from our hero! I could go on and on with this, but "Seliph-as-figurehead" is so sweepingly present in FE4 that I think people need to see his supposed plainness as the point of his character, rather than as something preventing a more interesting personality from coming out. An FE4 remake is going to have a tough time changing this because it's all built around the significant plot beats of FE4. You would need to do something truly bizarre, like killing Lewyn for good, to alter Seliph's character. If support conversations are added, presumably they'd just reaffirm Seliph's unsurety, as it would be pretty odd to have Seliph talk about how capable, honourable, and determined he is, only for Lewyn to come in and basically demand Seliph do what he says.

Well, my first piece of advice is to throw away the idea that you will beat the game first try with no deaths. The game is designed around the idea that you will lose units permanently, and offers a fair stream of new units to replace old ones. Permadeath was one of the selling points of Fire Emblem at its launch, whereas it's something that newer games try to dance around and avoid, so it's fair that you're not used to it but you should change your mindset to interact with these older games. FE1 offers a very neat method of keeping units alive in that enemies will always rush to kill Marth. He's a wonderful trump card that you can use to ward away attacks from enemies, provided you give him levels and keep him healthy. Best mage about to get swarmed by 2 swordsmen and killed? Throw Marth in a forest and they'll attack him instead. There might be some exceptions to this but I can't remember them, it's a pretty safe strategy overall. For battles themselves, you don't get any battle forecast, so speed and doubles are the only thing you can really reasonably predict. Of course, you could use the damage formula to calculate damage pre-battle, but overall you're supposed to be able to play by simply inferring an enemy's strength based on their grade of weapon and stats. The game even obfuscates numeric data on the battle screen to keep with this goal of accessibility; you could probably play the whole game and win without considering hard numbers even once. Yes, not doing calculations might lead to some unit deaths, but as I said earlier this shouldn't scare you off from playing the game (though you should obviously still try to keep your units alive). Careful of having units with powerful weapons face off against large enemy hordes. I've lost a Jagen and a Hardin like that, handing them their strongest weapons to mow through multiple enemies on enemy phase. While they can of course kill the enemy, this just left them open to the next enemy attack, whittling down their HP until they were dead. Check enemy ranges. They sometimes can travel a whole lot farther than you might assume. There's no danger zone, so it's on you to count out the tiles they can cross. Note that enemies might avoid attacking a high-defense unit at all, even if that unit is the only one in the enemies' range. As for resistance, well, there is none - most units will have no res for the whole game. Be careful of mages and use your own carefully to wipe out armour knights, which are quite threatening in this game from my memory. I would personally advise against the arena as battles can get volatile in there, and if you lose your unit will die. Have lost some very strong Kains and Abels like that. However others who understand the arena better might advise otherwise. Only use wikis/strategy guides for stuff like item info. I haven't read through the Japanese manual for the game, but it's pretty extensive and holds a lot of information on stuff like weapon levels, which aren't stated in-game. To repeat my first point, I'd really encourage you to play the game while allowing units to die. If you want 1 or 2 units like Shiida or Julian to stick around, a reset or two won't hurt, but overall it's important to get yourself in the mindset of playing this game as it was released - that is, embracing permadeath as a mechanic, avoiding it within the ruleset of the game and not using save states or resets to defeat it. Characters in FE1 tend to have little dialogue, or none at all, meaning you aren't missing much even if they die, unless you're assigning your own traits and value to your units. Which, speaking of, is something you should absolutely do. I think the structure of FE1 really invites the player to imagine the details of events from the bird's-eye view the game gives you, meaning you should feel free to let your creative energy flow and come up with stories, interactions, etc. for units to flesh out the simple blueprint the game gives you. With the volatility of the permadeath system, this can create a really exciting atmosphere, where your favourite unit that you've imagined an epic underdog story can suddenly be snatched away from you by a crit, or a fodder unit you never thought anything of can suddenly become a legend due to some lucky level ups or dodges. I would strongly argue this FE1 is intentionally making use of its limitations to create this atmosphere, and so it can be very fun to follow suit and let your imagination run wild. Hope this is helpful, have fun with this classic!