What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Alastor15243]

42 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I'd rather any Genealogy remake to not have turn rewinding integrated into the story.

Also, having it on Tryfing just invites too many questions. Now you'd have to invent why Vyron didn't used it to avoid Kurth getting killed, among the other stuff already brought that could be avoided.

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that there's never been any actual benefit to the stories so far in making the turnwheel canon, and honestly depending on how you interpret what the turnwheel canonically does in Echoes, both stories are far worse for including it. The only reason they seem to want to make it canon is to enshrine it as a core gameplay mechanic. Three Houses heavily implies that is in fact what it's intended to be (to my immense disappointment and horror), but then again that's not the same studio that made the turnwheel in the first place (even though Intelligent Systems also sort of implied through its implementation that the turnwheel is just supposed to be a thing everyone uses now), so maybe Genealogy will prove me wrong and they'll just keep the save system.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Alastor15243

[GlitchWarrior]

Alternatively, you can SAVE whenever you capture a castle for the first time. I'm not sure if that's too long of a wait though... To be honest I never played past chapter one and thus haven't seen any further maps. I know the maps get HUGE, though.

[X-Naut]

I wouldn't mind Turnwheel returning if they left it out of the story. The Wii rereleases for Pikmin added a day rewind feature but they never had to justify it, it's just a QoL feature.

[Alastor15243]

14 minutes ago, X-Naut said:

I wouldn't mind Turnwheel returning if they left it out of the story. The Wii rereleases for Pikmin added a day rewind feature but they never had to justify it, it's just a QoL feature.

Same as Invisible, Inc. Absolutely fantastic turn based strategy stealth game. They give you the power to rewind to the previous turn a limited number of times (which you can customize and even turn off entirely), and they don't even bother to claim it's a real thing your characters can do.

Making it optional to turn on and non-canon would eliminate basically all of my complaints with it, as it wouldn't touch the story and the developers wouldn't add gameplay elements that are only enjoyable if you assume the player is using it (Three Houses, looking at you).

Edited October 3, 2019 by Alastor15243

[NekoKnight]

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I wouldn't say that's necessarily bad though. Think about it from their perspective for a minute. Do you honestly know how hard it is to go against such complex feelings like love be it familial or romantic? Like speaking from personal experience, I'll say right now that it's really hard to betray someone you care about like that. It is extremely difficult even if you know that you should. Love is a very complex feeling and create a level of trust that's not so easily broken. It's not nearly as simple as just realizing you're wrong and simply snapping out of it. I mean for as terrible a person as Garon is during the events of the story, at the end of the day he's still Xander's father(well kind of). He's still the man who raised him and taught him everything he knows about what it means to be a true king. A bond like that is something you just can't easily break no matter how much other people tell you that you should. The same goes for romantic feelings in the case of Selena. To betray the man she once loved even if she knows that man is gone, to her at least that would be just heart breaking. The pain she would feel upon making a decision like that without coming to terms with those emotions would be ten times worse than the pain she's feeling now, at least I'd imagine anyway. Emotions are very complex things. Love being one of, if not, the most complex of them all so that at least makes sense to me. The real problem I feel is that that love is not communicated as well it could've been. Y'see this is where flashbacks can work wonders for storytelling. 

While we definitely need to give some leeway when it comes to how love rationalizes a character's decisions, I don't think we, as critical thinkers, should use "love isn't logical" as an excuse for all writing. For Selena, we see that it causes her pain to see Vigarde as he is now, and while the logical part of her brain would tell her that she's on the wrong side, she doesn't have the emotional strength to turn on him. It also helps her case that we never see Vigarde abuse Selena or people she cares about. Vigarde is less than half the man he used to be, but he's not a villain on a person level.

So we get to Xander. Xander witnesses extreme abuse by his father to people he cares about, even hearing him gloat about how he's going to make Corrin suffer so much, she'll beg for a death she won't receive. I can almost understand Xander downplaying Garon's actions because of his bias, but to such extremes, it strains one's suspension of disbelief. Xander doesn't show any sort of conflict between his love for Garon and his love for his siblings. In fact, when Corrin brings up the subject of Garon being a monster that needs to be killed, he goes as far to threaten Corrin with execution if they're lying about it. Those aren't the words of someone who has had doubt about Garon, and he should have at least some, having seen all the things he did.

[eclipse]

7 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

So we get to Xander. Xander witnesses extreme abuse by his father to people he cares about, even hearing him gloat about how he's going to make Corrin suffer so much, she'll beg for a death she won't receive. I can almost understand Xander downplaying Garon's actions because of his bias, but to such extremes, it strains one's suspension of disbelief. Xander doesn't show any sort of conflict between his love for Garon and his love for his siblings. In fact, when Corrin brings up the subject of Garon being a monster that needs to be killed, he goes as far to threaten Corrin with execution if they're lying about it. Those aren't the words of someone who has had doubt about Garon, and he should have at least some, having seen all the things he did.

Family loyalty is not something that's easily explained.  I sort-of understand this, but I was raised in such an environment (and FE is a series that's made in Japan).  Luckily, my family is sane.

[NekoKnight]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

Family loyalty is not something that's easily explained.  I sort-of understand this, but I was raised in such an environment (and FE is a series that's made in Japan).  Luckily, my family is sane.

It's not like IS takes a hardline on that stance. Plenty of characters rebell against their immoral family members in this series. One of the villains, Zephiel, tried his best to forgive his father and keep their family whole but even he eventually snapped. In that same game, Guinevere flees to Lycia because she knows her brother must be stopped.

 

 

[SubwayBossEmmett]

7 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

It's not like IS takes a hardline on that stance. Plenty of characters rebell against their immoral family members in this series. One of the villains, Zephiel, tried his best to forgive his father and keep their family whole but even he eventually snapped. In that same game, Guinevere flees to Lycia because she knows her brother must be stopped.

 

 

I mean to defend Xander that at the very end of CQ that he literally convinced everyone to turn on Goo-ran in the name of their father. 

Even when he turns against Garon, it’s in memory of his Father. 

>Xander: It is you who know nothing! Of my father, of me, or of my brother/sister here. All this time, I have strived to be a good son and a worthy heir. I have faithfully followed your orders, even when doing so tortured my soul. I brushed aside my early memories of Father and accepted you as our king. I fought in your name, hoping one day you would reawaken as the man you once were. But that man is dead and has been for a long time now...

>Xander: It is time to end your reign of terror. Camilla, Leo, Elise! Do not stay idly by while Corrin battles for his/her life and yours. If you are truly Nohrian royals, then stand up and fight! Fight for our kingdom and for our world... Fight for each other...and for our father. In his memory, let us defeat the beast who destroyed him!

Not trying to imply the scene of Xander threatening Corrin (or Fates in general) was written well but Xander’s unending loyalty to his father is why he’s basically a Camus in Birthright. 

Also side hot take, Camuses are generally shit and the best one didn’t even die and went on to join the person that supposedly killed him aka Camus. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by SubwayBossEmmett

[GlitchWarrior]

So, in other words, the bottom line, as I said earlier- the Camus archetype is stupid. Selena's, like, the best written one, and even THAT is a stretch. Characters like Eldigan and BR!Xander have no reason to trust the people they do, other than the writers realizing that they want to make the player question their choices.

[SubwayBossEmmett]

25 minutes ago, GlitchWarrior said:

So, in other words, the bottom line, as I said earlier- the Camus archetype is stupid. Selena's, like, the best written one, and even THAT is a stretch. Characters like Eldigan and BR!Xander have no reason to trust the people they do, other than the writers realizing that they want to make the player question their choices.

You know whose stupidity is understated? Gale from FE6, who is completely fine with his pupil joining the enemy (actively encouraging it) and still fights for Bern despite having no actual ties to his country. Although his best defense was that he was likely an actual recruitable characters at one point because he’s incredibly noteable compared to other trial map units with custom growths and affinities iirc

Hell that would probably make the reasoning behind 21x’s Gaiden requirement for Milady and Zeiss more understandable if it was Gale knew what they were doing to the apocalypse tome

Edited October 3, 2019 by SubwayBossEmmett

[eclipse]

On 10/2/2019 at 8:00 PM, NekoKnight said:

It's not like IS takes a hardline on that stance. Plenty of characters rebell against their immoral family members in this series. One of the villains, Zephiel, tried his best to forgive his father and keep their family whole but even he eventually snapped. In that same game, Guinevere flees to Lycia because she knows her brother must be stopped.

It took a literal murder attempt before he did.  I don't think Garon did that to Xander. . .though it would've been interesting to see what would've happened!

16 hours ago, GlitchWarrior said:

So, in other words, the bottom line, as I said earlier- the Camus archetype is stupid. Selena's, like, the best written one, and even THAT is a stretch. Characters like Eldigan and BR!Xander have no reason to trust the people they do, other than the writers realizing that they want to make the player question their choices.

The Camus archetype AS IT EXISTS NOW is not well-done.  But I'm going to hold on to the hope that the writing will be good enough to support the archetype.  One day.

[Garlyle]

21 hours ago, SubwayBossEmmett said:

You know whose stupidity is understated? Gale from FE6, who is completely fine with his pupil joining the enemy (actively encouraging it) and still fights for Bern despite having no actual ties to his country. Although his best defense was that he was likely an actual recruitable characters at one point because he’s incredibly noteable compared to other trial map units with custom growths and affinities iirc

Hell that would probably make the reasoning behind 21x’s Gaiden requirement for Milady and Zeiss more understandable if it was Gale knew what they were doing to the apocalypse tome

I think he was actually a better written from this archetype. I'd loved to have him join to my army, but I also found it understandable to keep him as an enemy. Neither Murdock or Gale was fond of the idea to fight Miledy or Zeiss, who were fighting along Bern before. Gale also had a journey to get the honorary position as a Dragon Lord of Bern, thanks to the scheming of Narshen before the events of Binding Blade. 

[vanguard333]

I have a few:

1. I think Micaiah and Sothe are okay; not the best romance I've ever seen, but not the worst, and I honestly don't see the whole "they're like brother and sister" as they certainly don't behave like brother and sister. 

By contrast, I don't like Elincia and Geoffrey. They grew up together in the same villa. It's weird, and while Geoffrey may not act like Elincia's a sister to him, Elincia certainly acts like he's a brother to her (at least in Path of Radiance). Plus, I just find Geoffrey's character about as interesting as beige-flavoured oatmeal. 

 

2. I actually prefer Shadow Dragon over Shadows of Valentia. It may have been extremely retro, but I didn't mind that; I was just glad that the original FE game was finally coming to North America. At least Shadow Dragon knew what it wanted to be: a throwback to the original game with some cool new features like reclassing and bonus chapters.

By contrast, with Shadows of Valentia, it feels like the team was given Fire Emblem Gaiden, told to make a remake that overhauls/updates the game, and they couldn't agree on how to do so. All the additions to the story like Berkut, Ferdinand, Conrad and Rinea feel extremely tacked-on, the script is a mishmash of areas that were given an overhaul and areas that were left barebones, the dungeons and villages get an overhaul but the level design goes completely unchanged to the game's detriment, and characters behave in ways that go against the core themes and parallelism the story was trying to get across:

• Alm being a generic Marth lord that gets treated as perfect by the cast when his arc is supposed to be taking-action leading to thinking-only-of-the-next-battle leading to him killing his father and reconciling with Celica
• Emperor Rudolf coming across like a kind-hearted idiot when he was supposed to be a well-intentioned extremist and a warning to Alm of what he'd become if not for Celica
• Jedah behaving like a moustache-twirling villain when he's supposed to be a fanatic and a warning to Celica of what she'd become if not for Alm

Note that all of those are the result of changes and additions they made to each character's dialogue and arc, because the original script was very barebones. 

[Alastor15243]

53 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I have a few:

1. I think Micaiah and Sothe are okay; not the best romance I've ever seen, but not the worst, and I honestly don't see the whole "they're like brother and sister" as they certainly don't behave like brother and sister. 

By contrast, I don't like Elincia and Geoffrey. They grew up together in the same villa. It's weird, and while Geoffrey may not act like Elincia's a sister to him, Elincia certainly acts like he's a brother to her (at least in Path of Radiance). Plus, I just find Geoffrey's character about as interesting as beige-flavoured oatmeal. 

 

2. I actually prefer Shadow Dragon over Shadows of Valentia. It may have been extremely retro, but I didn't mind that; I was just glad that the original FE game was finally coming to North America. At least Shadow Dragon knew what it wanted to be: a throwback to the original game with some cool new features like reclassing and bonus chapters.

By contrast, with Shadows of Valentia, it feels like the team was given Fire Emblem Gaiden, told to make a remake that overhauls/updates the game, and they couldn't agree on how to do so. All the additions to the story like Berkut, Ferdinand, Conrad and Rinea feel extremely tacked-on, the script is a mishmash of areas that were given an overhaul and areas that were left barebones, the dungeons and villages get an overhaul but the level design goes completely unchanged to the game's detriment, and characters behave in ways that go against the core themes and parallelism the story was trying to get across:

• Alm being a generic Marth lord that gets treated as perfect by the cast when his arc is supposed to be taking-action leading to thinking-only-of-the-next-battle leading to him killing his father and reconciling with Celica
• Emperor Rudolf coming across like a kind-hearted idiot when he was supposed to be a well-intentioned extremist and a warning to Alm of what he'd become if not for Celica
• Jedah behaving like a moustache-twirling villain when he's supposed to be a fanatic and a warning to Celica of what she'd become if not for Alm

Note that all of those are the result of changes and additions they made to each character's dialogue and arc, because the original script was very barebones. 

Where are you getting those interpretations from? Rudolf and Jedah barely made any sense in the original, and having just recently beat the original Gaiden, I never got any impression that's what they were going for.

[SubwayBossEmmett]

3 hours ago, Garlyle said:

but I also found it understandable to keep him as an enemy

Why though? He didn’t have any ties to Bern at that point, and basically committed treason already within convincing Zeiss. 

[vanguard333]

4 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Where are you getting those interpretations from? Rudolf and Jedah barely made any sense in the original, and having just recently beat the original Gaiden, I never got any impression that's what they were going for.

Sorry; I should've been more clear. The fact that the original story was barebones meant it's impossible to really get a sense of almost anything about the characters. I wasn't saying you could get all that from the original; I was saying that the original is so barebones that it's hard to get anything from it, and that's one reason I know that a lot of the character issues stem from what's been added in Echoes. 

As for how those interpretations are what they were going for, "supposed to be" was definitely the wrong way to phrase it. I was trying to get across that the story seems in-conflict about what they wanted these characters to be; what they wanted them to do, and I figure this probably a result of the writing team being conflicted on those very things. 

As for how I think those things I mislabeled as "supposed to be" were what at least some of the writers may have been trying to go for, I mainly get that from looking at particular aspects of the story that highlight the central themes:

There's an obvious emphasis on duality, dual perspectives, and not letting different viewpoints divide. This is obvious from Mila and Duma, as well as scenes like the opening where Alm and Celica talk about how Mila and Duma clashed over ideology and they promise never to let anything come between them. The game was also heavily marketed as "The way of the sword, or the way of the heart" and highlighting Alm being all about taking action and Celica being about investigating what's going on and finding Mila. Naturally, one would think that the two protagonists and their arcs are being set up to reflect this. Celica's is, but Alm's isn't. 

Similarly, for Rudolf, we get things like the "But in their quest for power, the Rigelians had let their hearts grow cold and numb to all kindness" line over a picture of Rudolf at the very beginning cinematic that's meant to establish the central premise of the story. Look at how Rudolf is set up: the powerful emperor of the militaristic and Darwinist Rigelian Empire; the central opponent to Alm before the big twist; the man taking action to make sure the continent can go on without Mila and Duma. He strongly parallels Alm, or at least what Alm was set up to be. But then, after the plot twist, Rudolf's treated like an unsung hero whose plan was the only way it could happen.

And, for Jedah, between all the cackling and moustache-twirling, we get lines like these: 

Alm: Stand down, Jedah! Your schemes end here and now. Prepare to pay for your atrocities!

Jedah: Rudolf’s worthless spawn… You’re both disgusting heretics. How dare you wish harm on Duma!

Celica: Open your eyes, Jedah. No matter how it pains you, you must see the truth. Duma’s gone mad—he brings only suffering to his people now. This is the divine dragons’ fate.

Jedah: Silence, girl! You know nothing of what you speak. And if suffering is the gods’ will, what of it? Without their strength at its foundation, Valentia cannot sustain life.

It's as if they have two different ideas on what they want Jedah to be: one being a moustache-twirling villain, and the other being a fanatic whose actions stem from a belief that Valentia needs Duma no matter how mad he becomes. As for him being a villainous foil to Celica, well there's the fact that he mainly opposes Celica; not really bothering with Alm until Act 5, and the fact that his goals and dependency on Duma mirror Celica's goals and dependency on Mila. 

Now do you understand what I was trying to say?

[Alastor15243]

@vanguard333 So you weren't talking about changes from Gaiden, you meant change from the original suggested premise of the remake, and basically you think twist Rudolf is less interesting than playing him straight would have been?

Edited October 4, 2019 by Alastor15243

[vanguard333]

4 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

@vanguard333 So you weren't talking about changes from Gaiden, you meant change from the original suggested premise of the remake, and basically you think twist Rudolf is less interesting than playing him straight would have been?

Yes, and no; in that order. 

Yes; I was talking about the suggested premise of the remake; I only brought up the original to stress that the issues I had were issues with the remake specifically. 

No; I don't think playing Rudolf straight would've been better than the twist. The twist that Rudolf was deliberately setting Alm up to lead a campaign across the whole continent and gain enough strength to defeat Mila and Duma is a good twist. My problem is that the perspective of the characters after the reveal. I can understand Mycen believing this is the only way it could happen; he was in on the plan from the beginning. But everyone else treats his actions as heroic, when only the intent was heroic; the actions were horrific and seemingly built on that Rigelian "might makes right" mentality. It would've been better (and fitting the stated premise of the story) if it had been properly conveyed as just that: an evil plan born out of good intentions and obsession with individual strength. 

Basically, the story really needed Alm to have a Black-Panther-like, "All of you are wrong!" moment. 

To help get the point across, I'm going to quote myself from the topic: Rudolf was meant to be a villain folks. For context, I should point out that the inner quote is what the topic's creator, @Jotari said that I was responding to, and the stuff below it is my response. 

Quote

Quote

And Rudolf's appearance makes people think "Man, that guy was an idiot who got a shit tonne of people killed with his good intentions," as opposed to what I believe was the intended reaction "wow, so his intentions were sort of noble, but he went about them in the most heartless and inconsiderate way possible."

Recall, even in the minimalist Gaiden script, Rudolf introduces himself in a cordial way to Alm and nobly declares his men to stand down once he's dead. Yet after the battle, when Alm knows Rudolf is his father, he still calls Rudolf a horrible person. Like Alvis and Sephiran, Rudolf is meant to be a man of contrast. Someone who's goals or personality is laudable, but who's actions are despicable. Everything Rudolf does is also in line with Duma's philosophy. Strength is everything. If humans can beat the very gods they worship, then it will prove they are strong enough to weather any conflict. I found in the original, it was ambiguous whether or not it was even entirely Rudolf's plan alone, or if he was working with Duma. After all, Duma (who isn't crazy in Gaiden), praises Alm for defeating him and proving his strength.

So to put it succinctly, Rudolf's plan depends, at its very core, on Alm being able to single-handedly take on the armies of Rigel. It depends on him being the fated son of destiny that can accomplish anything. It depends on a crap tonne of people dying through no fault of their own. Because, at it's core, the plan is working off might makes right mentality. If the plan fails, then it deserves to fail because Alm and humanity (and the player), just aren't good enough to conquer the gods. It's not meant to be viewed as a smart plan, or a good plan. The fact that it succeeds is meant to be uncomfortable. It's meant to show that while this view point of the world is evil, there is logic to it. A cold hearted logic that we as a species might some day need to survive. But a logic that also isn't the be all and end all of our lives. A cold hearted logic that requires compassion to truly succeed. Because Alm didn't defeat Duma by just stabbing him in the face, he did it by standing beside Celica and abusing that 100% crit ratio! That, my friends, is gameplay and story integration.

 

Ah; now the "But in their quest for power, the Rigelians had let their hearts grow cold and numb to all kindness" line over a picture of Rudolf finally makes sense to me...

Honestly, I think you're both right, but I think the problem had less to do with appearance, and more to do with the writing. One problem with SoV was that it had topics and things like these in mind, but then did a really bad job presenting them and conveying them to the player. This goes for almost all the main characters, and Rudolf and Alm are no exceptions.

After Rudolf's death, we find Mycen telling Alm about Rudolf's plan, in such a way that it conveys, "This is the only way it could've happened, now stop crying and fight Duma." And Alm just... takes it. I get that he's grieving, but he's blaming himself without taking anything from it. If they wanted to convey that Alm and Rudolf are counterpoints to each other, then Mycen's explanation should have been laced with Rudolf's viewpoint, and then Alm, after a moment to cry, should have called the old men out on their actions; slowly starting to disagree and saying that they're wrong; that Alm has only gotten as far as he has because of the people alongside him, and called him out on the fact that Rudolf's and Rigel's obsession with strength and the next battle left them blind to both compassion and to alternative actions. Alm should have called them out on the fact that their intentions were good, but their actions were horrible, and that he is not going to lead like that.

For a bonus, they should've also had Alm have a bit of self-reflection. It may have been Rudolf's plan, but he jumped right into it; thinking only of the next battle; a flaw shared by both father and son, and, as you (Jotari) have in your signature, was supposed to be Alm's flaw in Echoes. But he never gets called out on it; Celica just yells at him in the reunion scene in a way that makes her come off as angry and irrational, rather than as a clash of both of them being dead-set on their respective approaches, and the big scene that should really have driven the point that he's only thinking of the next battle, the moment where he learns he just killed his father, he's just going, "No! I just killed my father!" And no one learns anything from it.

Rudolf is supposed to be what Alm would've become if not for his friends; particularly Celica. But the game fails to convey this. Alm doesn't learn, he's shown as foreign to Rudolf's way of thinking rather than realizing how they are a counterpoint. The point would have been delivered so much better if we had Alm introspect, and realize at these important moments where he and Rudolf were very similar, and where they differ.

These moments in the game that are supposed to convey the philosophy of each character, where it's right, and where it's wrong, often fail to show what they're trying to show, thanks to flaws in the writing for both the plot and the characters. And I think this is the biggest reason why Rudolf comes off as an idiot rather than a villain. Thanks to the flaws in these moments, Alm comes off as "supposedly perfect and special according to the game", Celica comes off as "an irrational idiot", Rudolf comes off as an "idiot with a flimsy plan", Mycen comes off as "the world's most flat ninja grandpa; appearing and disappearing anywhere when the plot calls for it and overall not really sounding like he cares about Alm at all", and Jedah comes off as "a moustache-twirling villain" rather than a religious fanatic resigned to Duma's madness and unable to conceive of a world without Duma (in other words, something of a counterpoint to Celica). 

As for appearance, the fact that SoV Rudolf further resembles Walhart should have helped convey the point that Rudolf is just as much a victim of Duma's philosophy taken to the extreme as every other major character in Rigel, if not more so. Walhart's big failing was that he could only see in terms of strength, conquest, and the next battle, just like Rudolf. But it doesn't, for those story reasons that I mentioned. 

Sorry that this is long; I had intended for it to be a quick response. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by vanguard333

[Ottservia]

Can we all just agree that echoes was just a thematic mess of a story?! Cause it really is just a mess. Say what you will about fates but at least it tries to stay thematically consistent despite tripping over itself every now and again 

[Azure the Scale Tipper]

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Can we all just agree that echoes was just a thematic mess of a story?! Cause it really is just a mess. Say what you will about fates but at least it tries to stay thematically consistent despite tripping over itself every now and again 

Yeah, Alm just put a large wrench in a theme added in that may have had merit, but... they could have went with something else that did work well with Alm if they were not going to change the story that much. Berkut and Fernand may not have benefitted much from it, either.

[Acacia Sgt]

I suppose it's unpopular then if I think that... I don't really see much of an issue. If I'm not mistaken on what aspect is being critiqued there.

If anything, it adds to it, considering the way their world works. Which, in certain and obvious aspects, it's not our world, so it makes sense.

[KMT4ever]

Pitching in to the Xander debate, I think he's more justified than the average Camus. Aside from familial loyalty to Garon (which is understandable if not necessarily moral), he has a very simple reason to remain loyal to Nohr in that it is his country in a literal sense. Xander will become her next king, and he's not going to get a warm reception if he does so by killing or deposing the current king.

"Hey everybody, I know I got on this throne by siding with our mortal enemy and overthrowing my own father, but don't worry, I totally have Nohr's best interests at heart."

This is especially relevant when in both games Nohr is decisively winning the war against Hoshido. The crown prince suddenly betraying (and inevitably helping murder) the king in order to make peace is not going to go over well with the court, certainly nowhere near as well as if Garon had gotten Nohr into a losing war. Xander could easily end up with a civil war on his hands. That does raise questions of how they explained Garon's death in Conquest, but what's one more example of bad writing?

[vanguard333]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Can we all just agree that echoes was just a thematic mess of a story?! Cause it really is just a mess. Say what you will about fates but at least it tries to stay thematically consistent despite tripping over itself every now and again 

1 hour ago, Azure, Roundabouted Out said:

Yeah, Alm just put a large wrench in a theme added in that may have had merit, but... they could have went with something else that did work well with Alm if they were not going to change the story that much. Berkut and Fernand may not have benefitted much from it, either.

I agree with both of you on this. 

However, if we can all agree on it, that means it's not an unpopular opinion, so I'll have to change my answer (though to be clear; I'm keeping the "I think Shadow Dragon is better than Shadows of Valentia because at least Shadow Dragon knew what it wanted to be" opinion, as I'm pretty sure that one's unpopular). 

New Unpopular Opinion: I think that crossbows were a good idea that should see a return at some point. Is that unpopular?

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Can we all just agree that echoes was just a thematic mess of a story?! Cause it really is just a mess. Say what you will about fates but at least it tries to stay thematically consistent despite tripping over itself every now and again 

I think one of the only reasons Shadows of Valencia got spared the hammer universal awful writing complaints is because it has really good voice acting that serves to make it far more presentable.

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I agree with both of you on this. 

However, if we can all agree on it, that means it's not an unpopular opinion, so I'll have to change my answer (though to be clear; I'm keeping the "I think Shadow Dragon is better than Shadows of Valentia because at least Shadow Dragon knew what it wanted to be" opinion, as I'm pretty sure that one's unpopular). 

New Unpopular Opinion: I think that crossbows were a good idea that should see a return at some point. Is that unpopular?

I don't know about anyone else but I'd love to see Crossbows again. I have then on my class tree. I think they need to scale better with enemy defense though. Either making them like FE1 tomes in that they ignore both users str and enemy def entirely essentially dealing set damage, or by giving them significant damage increases for weapon rank.

Edited October 5, 2019 by Jotari

[Thinks Their Own Way]

Camus' are the party loyalests (the #VoteBlueNoMatterWhat/Trudeau supporter/Republican base and PC Conservative base) of the Fire Emblem, I know these people in real-life and that they are very presistent in their loyality. I have the mentally of not even arguing with them anymore, it's why I don't find the archetype aggravating.

New Hot Takes Unpopular Opinions:

I don't mind how Radiant Dawn handle supports, It sucks that the new characters get a bit screwed over; but I feel they get enough screentime and the base conventions get the job done.

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Can we all just agree that echoes was just a thematic mess of a story?! Cause it really is just a mess. Say what you will about fates but at least it tries to stay thematically consistent despite tripping over itself every now and again 

Seeing what does get praise as good writing in this Fandom, discussions about it at this point goes in one ear and out the other.