What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[NekoKnight]

3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Kinda yes. I like Sylvain but he's undeniably a jerk who goes out of his way to be the worst version of himself. Lorentz meanwhile strives to be his very best version but is just a klutz about it. 

That about sums it up, I think.

3 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

At least Sylvain isn't rapey. 

What a bar to leap! lol

Soleil tho, talk about Yikes: the character.

[Arachnofiend]

They somehow managed to combine every bad lesbian trope into one character with Soleil. Conquest would be a better game if it had no characters and your units were nameless pips on a board and that's why Fates is the worst Fire Emblem game

[Strullemia]

11 hours ago, Arachnofiend said:

Lorenz is a good guy and Sylvain is an absolute trash heap of a person, and the only reason Sylvain is a more popular character is because he's physically attractive.

I don't think it's just that. Sylvain unlike most womanizer characters in FE has a rather interesting reason for being one and a good backstory on top of that.

[Arachnofiend]

1 hour ago, Strullemia said:

I don't think it's just that. Sylvain unlike most womanizer characters in FE has a rather interesting reason for being one and a good backstory on top of that.

He really doesn't. It's like, grow up dude, we all have crest drama, and you're the only one who decided it meant it's okay to be a terrible person

[Alastor15243]

3 hours ago, Arachnofiend said:

He really doesn't. It's like, grow up dude, we all have crest drama, and you're the only one who decided it meant it's okay to be a terrible person

Yeah, I picture Inigo staring daggers at Sylvain over how pathetic Sylvain's "excuse" is by comparison. Inigo at least has the excuse of being a little bit crazy, just like all the other kids that survived the zombie apocalypse.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Alastor15243

[Etrurian emperor]

I really don't like how the crests are incorporated into the gameplay of Three Houses. Holy blood might have been broken in Jugdral but it was supposed to be. Holy blood being powerful is the gameplay reinforcing the lore. With Crests its different. They are supposed to be all important but in combat you hardly notice crests. I find it a bit silly to have nobles torture their family members and disown their children in the hopes of getting an heir that...triggers adept once in a blue moon? Occasionally manages to preserve one magic spell after using it? Sometimes does a little more damage? It has its uses but hardly justifies all the abuse.

[Alastor15243]

3 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I really don't like how the crests are incorporated into the gameplay of Three Houses. Holy blood might have been broken in Jugdral but it was supposed to be. Holy blood being powerful is the gameplay reinforcing the lore. With Crests its different. They are supposed to be all important but in combat you hardly notice crests. I find it a bit silly to have nobles torture their family members and disown their children in the hopes of getting an heir that...triggers adept once in a blue moon? Occasionally manages to preserve one magic spell after using it? Sometimes does a little more damage? It has its uses but hardly justifies all the abuse.

Agreed. And gameplaywise, at least if they weren't all procs they could be cool, but they're all basically completely irrelevant to my strategies because you can never count on any of them. The game doesn't even tell you what the activation rate is, and for half of them it doesn't even clearly tell you what they do.

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Yeah, I picture Inigo staring daggers at Sylvain over how pathetic Sylvain's "excuse" is by comparison. Inigo at least has the excuse of being a little bit crazy, just like all the other kids that survived the zombie apocalypse.

4 hours ago, Arachnofiend said:

He really doesn't. It's like, grow up dude, we all have crest drama, and you're the only one who decided it meant it's okay to be a terrible person

Sylvain’s reason for being the way he is is certainly more nuanced than Inigo’s I’ll say.  Also I don’t know about either of you but I can appreciate that nuance and depth. Whether or not Sylvain is a “good” person matters very little to me cause I’m more concerned with why he acts the way he does and how those things are integrated into the rest of his character which is why I find him so fascinating and seeing him grow out of his cynicism by the end is certainly a satisfying experience.

Honestly I absolutely despise this mentality that “good person = good character” cause that is not true in the slightest and it bothers me to no end.

[Flere210]

9 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I really don't like how the crests are incorporated into the gameplay of Three Houses. Holy blood might have been broken in Jugdral but it was supposed to be. Holy blood being powerful is the gameplay reinforcing the lore. With Crests its different. They are supposed to be all important but in combat you hardly notice crests. I find it a bit silly to have nobles torture their family members and disown their children in the hopes of getting an heir that...triggers adept once in a blue moon? Occasionally manages to preserve one magic spell after using it? Sometimes does a little more damage? It has its uses but hardly justifies all the abuse.

I think the ability to ise relic weapons and their arts is the real deal. Sylvain would be half of the units he is whitout the Lance of Ruin and how early you get it.

[Alastor15243]

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Sylvain’s reason for being the way he is is certainly more nuanced than Inigo’s I’ll say.  Also I don’t know about either of you but I can appreciate that nuance and depth. Whether or not Sylvain is a “good” person matters very little to me cause I’m more concerned with why he acts the way he does and how those things are integrated into the rest of his character which is why I find him so fascinating and seeing him grow out of his cynicism by the end is certainly a satisfying experience.

Honestly I absolutely despise this mentality that “good person = good character” cause that is not true in the slightest and it bothers me to no end.

I don't think you have to be a good person to be a good character. I just think Sylvain is both a bad person and a bad character. I don't find him entertaining, sympathetic or charming. He's not as much of a vehicle for humor as Inigo, he's not as endearing and lovable as Sain, and every time he opens his mouth to flirt with a woman I cringe first, and want to punch him in the face second, because his flirting method reminds me of the sleazebag Buffy dated in season 4, and he's little better to the women he dates than that guy was. Like I said, with the others we're at minimum given the benefit of the doubt about what they'd do with a date once they get one, but here, we're given no such luxury. And imagining Sylvain trying to explain his tragic backstory to Inigo is a hilariously pathetic mental image to me.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Alastor15243

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

I don't think you have to be a good person to be a good character. I just think Sylvain is both a bad person and a bad character. I don't find him entertaining, sympathetic or charming. He's not as much of a vehicle for humor as Inigo, he's not as endearing and lovable as Sain, and every time he opens his mouth to flirt with a woman I cringe first, and want to punch him in the face second, because his flirting method reminds me of the sleazebag Buffy dated in season 4, and he's little better to the women he dates than that guy was.

You’re the type of person who wouldn’t like  the rebellion movie aren’t you because it “ruined Homura’s character”. I can tell but enough about my ramblings about Madoka cause it certainly sounds like you’re saying Sylvain is poorly written because you personally don’t like him and that’s a bullshit reason to call something objectively bad if you don’t mind me being so blunt. I mean I’m fine with you having an opinion but don’t make objective claims like that which you cannot prove beyond it being your opinion. 

Sylvain is a pretty great character cause he has reasonable explanations for why he acts the way he does and those things are very well integrated into his character as shown in his interactions with other characters. It’s one thing to not like Sylvain cause that’s a matter of personal taste and preference. It’s another thing entirely to say he’s poorly written because you don’t like him cause that’s just disingenuous to writers and the nuances they built into his character.

[Alastor15243]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

You’re the type of person who wouldn’t like  the rebellion movie aren’t you because it “ruined Homura’s character”. I can tell but enough about my ramblings about Madoka cause it certainly sounds like you’re saying Sylvain is poorly written because you personally don’t like him and that’s a bullshit reason to call something objectively bad if you don’t mind me being so blunt. I mean I’m fine with you having an opinion but don’t make objective claims like that which you cannot prove beyond it being your opinion.

What exactly in what I said sounded like me saying it was an objective fact? Did you miss all the "I think"s in there? I think he's a bad character because I find he doesn't induce any emotional reaction from me but boredom and anger. He's an asshole, and not even an entertaining one, or one I love to hate.

[Flere210]

I hate rebellion because it ruined Madoka's ending for the sake of a sequel hook that is never going to happen because the butcher is too busy playing D&D whit Nasu and Narita(wich is also the reason fate/strange fake will end in 2030).

[Ottservia]

11 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

What exactly in what I said sounded like me saying it was an objective fact? Did you miss all the "I think"s in there? I think he's a bad character because I find he doesn't induce any emotional reaction from me but boredom and anger. He's an asshole, and not even an entertaining one, or one I love to hate.

It’s because of your use of the phrase “bad character” it is a broad statement that can mean two different things. 

1. It can mean I think this character is boring and I don’t like that 

which is a subjective statement framed as an objective one which I don’t like

2. I think this character is objectively poorly written.

In this case it’s the former and I still don’t like it because it sounds like you’re making an objective statement when you’re not. Now if you had said “I just don’t find Sylvain to be all that interesting” then fine that’s whatever cause it’s your opinion. Like if you want to express your opinion fine just word it in a way where it’s clear it’s solely just that an opinion. To claim something is “bad” is to imply some level of objective level of quality. In this case poor quality which just isn’t true and just your personal opinion. Be careful in how you phrase things cause certain words and phrases can carry implications you never intended.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Ottservia

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It’s because of your use of the phrase “bad character” it is a broad statement that can mean two different things. 

1. It can mean I think this character is boring and I don’t like that 

which is a subjective statement framed as an objective one which I don’t like

2. I think this character is objectively poorly written.

In this case it’s the former and I still don’t like it because it sounds like you’re making an objective statement when you’re not. Now if you had said. Like if you want to express your opinion fine just word it in a way where it’s clear it’s solely just that an opinion. To claim something is “bad” is to imply some level of objective level of quality. In this case poor quality which just isn’t true and you’re just your personal opinion. Be careful in how you phrase things cause certain words and phrases can carry implications you never intended.

So, hypothetically, you feel that a character could exist that you personally would describe as both extremely well-written and completely devoid of any entertainment value whatsoever?

[Ottservia]

17 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

So, hypothetically, you feel that a character could exist that you personally would describe as both extremely well-written and completely devoid of any entertainment value whatsoever?

In a manner of speaking yes. There are plenty of characters that I personally don’t like or find boring that I can consider well written(Sai from Naruto, Rise Kujikawa, Makoto Nijima, Yen’fey(to an extent anyway), Ryoma, Hinoka, etc.) and the reverse is also true. There are plenty of characters/stories that I love but can admit they are trash and poorly written(fairy tail being the most prominent example that comes to mind).

then again for me personally it takes a lot for me to actually dislike a character. It’s either I’m indifferent or like them. Rarely do I ever dislike a character honestly.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Ottservia

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I really don't like how the crests are incorporated into the gameplay of Three Houses. Holy blood might have been broken in Jugdral but it was supposed to be. Holy blood being powerful is the gameplay reinforcing the lore. With Crests its different. They are supposed to be all important but in combat you hardly notice crests. I find it a bit silly to have nobles torture their family members and disown their children in the hopes of getting an heir that...triggers adept once in a blue moon? Occasionally manages to preserve one magic spell after using it? Sometimes does a little more damage? It has its uses but hardly justifies all the abuse.

Well they do allow holy weapon use without turning into monsters, which is somewhat more useful, even if the holy weapons aren't as broken as Jugdral.

[Alastor15243]

20 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well they do allow holy weapon use without turning into monsters, which is somewhat more useful, even if the holy weapons aren't as broken as Jugdral.

But what's the point of giving any one person two crests then, especially considering the cost? Am I really to believe they're trying to accomplish dual wielding, even if they had access to both artifacts?

Edited October 28, 2019 by Alastor15243

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

But what's the point of giving any one person two crests then, especially considering the cost? Am I really to believe they're trying to accomplish dual wielding, even if they had access to both artifacts?

Sure, why not? This isn't Gaiden. Units can carry multiple weapons at once. Don't see any reason that logic shouldn't hold in story as well as gameplay.

[Alastor15243]

Just now, Jotari said:

Sure, why not? This isn't Gaiden. Units can carry multiple weapons at once. Don't see any reason that logic shouldn't hold in story as well as gameplay.

But what advantage could that give? You have both the artifacts already if you're trying to get someone to be able to use both, presumably. Why not get two people who can use both of them at once between them rather than one who can only effectively use one of them at a time?

[Jotari]

2 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

But what advantage could that give? You have both the artifacts already if you're trying to get someone to be able to use both, presumably. Why not get two people who can use both of them at once between them rather than one who can only effectively use one of them at a time?

Weapon Triangle. Wait, damn, that doesn't exist in Three Houses. Yet another reason it was a stupid reason to remove it.

Although to be real, I'd guess that two crests wasn't the end goal. The over all goal was to discover a way to safely add crests to people and push such research to it's limit.

[Etrurian emperor]

31 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well they do allow holy weapon use without turning into monsters, which is somewhat more useful, even if the holy weapons aren't as broken as Jugdral.

 

1 hour ago, Flere210 said:

I think the ability to ise relic weapons and their arts is the real deal. Sylvain would be half of the units he is whitout the Lance of Ruin and how early you get it.

That would depend on the crest. The noble that tortured Hanneman's sister to death did so because he wanted a crest of Indech which doesn't have a relic associated with it, at least not one that a random noble would be familiar with. 

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Weapon Triangle. Wait, damn, that doesn't exist in Three Houses. Yet another reason it was a stupid reason to remove it.

Although to be real, I'd guess that two crests wasn't the end goal. The over all goal was to discover a way to safely add crests to people and push such research to it's limit.

Do they say anywhere that the process to implant crests required them to have a crest already? I suppose they imply it by the fact that all of Edelgard's non-crested siblings died in the process and only Edelgard, the one who already had a crest, survived. But do they ever say it explicitly?

Edited October 28, 2019 by Alastor15243

[Jotari]

5 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Do they say anywhere that the process to implant crests required them to have a crest already? I suppose they imply it by the fact that all of Edelgard's non-crested siblings died in the process and only Edelgard, the one who already had a crest, survived. But do they ever say it explicitly?

Probably not, but it doesn't really matter. Giving someone two crests just to see if they can is in line with immoral scientific practices.

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Probably not, but it doesn't really matter. Giving someone two crests just to see if they can is in line with immoral scientific practices.

I beg to differ. If it didn't matter whether they had crests or not, kidnapping peasants would be way more discreet and cost effective, if they're just looking to see if they can implant crests at all. Way wider variety of test subjects.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Alastor15243