What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Harvey]

7 hours ago, eclipse said:

Your logic is bad, and as long as you continue to parade it around as if it's something to be proud of, I'm going to call you out on it.  Bad logic regarding your taste in video games is unfortunate, but the most you'll get is people telling you that you're wrong.  Apply your method of thinking to something more serious (say, politics or racial issues), and it becomes a huge problem.

If you don't have the strength to face your own flaws and fix them, then you have no place in this topic.  The issue isn't that you don't see the appeal of TMS.  The issue is the fact that you refuse to get past one thing you despise, and that's messing with your logic.

 

Pretty much most logical here are wrong so what's your point? You don't seem to get the point of this topic which is unpopular opinion that you have that others don't get. I got no flaw in this because this is something that annoyed you and not me. TMS is a game that should really not have existed because the potential crossover of what Fire emblem should be has been ruined.

Anyways I'm done.

[eclipse]

Just now, Harvey said:

Pretty much most logical here are wrong so what's your point? You don't seem to get the point of this topic which is unpopular opinion that you have that others don't get. I got no flaw in this because this is something that annoyed you and not me. TMS is a game that should really not have existed because the potential crossover of what Fire emblem should be has been ruined.

Anyways I'm done.

Point is that as long as you hold that view, I'm going to call you out on it.  You being utterly dishonest about it, mentally, isn't helping.  I can't force you to change your mind, but I can show off everything wrong with your view.  If you don't like it, you enact the personal change to make yourself an overall better person.

'sides, these things usually manifest themselves as a rules breach sooner or later, and that's when I have to hand out warns.  I'd rather not warn people, so if it means nipping it in the bud, publicly and messily, I will.

[Harvey]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Point is that as long as you hold that view, I'm going to call you out on it.  You being utterly dishonest about it, mentally, isn't helping.  I can't force you to change your mind, but I can show off everything wrong with your view.  If you don't like it, you enact the personal change to make yourself an overall better person.

'sides, these things usually manifest themselves as a rules breach sooner or later, and that's when I have to hand out warns.  I'd rather not warn people, so if it means nipping it in the bud, publicly and messily, I will.

Don't know how you can tell me that I'm being dishonest when I already told how I felt about it...you still have ignored the question that I asked which is about arguing an unpopular opinion.

But for real, I'm done here.

 

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Harvey said:

Don't know how you can tell me that I'm being dishonest when I already told how I felt about it...you still have ignored the question that I asked which is about arguing an unpopular opinion.

But for real, I'm done here.

 

Mental dishonesty, in this case, means that you're choosing to ignore things that are objectively wrong because it's uncomfortable to your world view.  At absolute best, you're going to have some really weirdly wrong opinions about RL. . .with said opinions having little consequence.  At absolute worst, I ban you with a very nasty message, because you internalized that mental dishonesty into opinions that are actively harmful.  Don't go down that path.

You can have an opinion, but you can also have an opinion that's factually wrong.  Yours falls into the latter.

[Eurydice]

I guess I don't care too much about the older Fire Emblem as insta death puts me off ? Though, this opinion may change in the future. 

[Benice]

LTC runs aren't as fun as regular, slower runs. For instance, in many games you'd just cheese the game using early game prepromotes, use only the very best units, etc. (Especially in games like Sacred stones and Blazing blade.) For me, the appeal of playing FE is to take my time and smell the roses. Using terrible units who have potential to be powerful, using Ests, these are all little joys in life that amke it beautiful.

That said, I don't dissagree that LTC runs can be fun, I just prefer slower runs. (I also am really bad at FE, so that might play a part.)

[Hanes]

The NES games are pretty fun and they become more accesible with a few tweaks to the menus on the maps.

[Jotari]

57 minutes ago, Benice said:

LTC runs aren't as fun as regular, slower runs. For instance, in many games you'd just cheese the game using early game prepromotes, use only the very best units, etc. (Especially in games like Sacred stones and Blazing blade.) For me, the appeal of playing FE is to take my time and smell the roses. Using terrible units who have potential to be powerful, using Ests, these are all little joys in life that amke it beautiful.

That said, I don't dissagree that LTC runs can be fun, I just prefer slower runs. (I also am really bad at FE, so that might play a part.)

Pretty sure the people that actually play LTC are in the minority.

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Benice said:

LTC runs aren't as fun as regular, slower runs. For instance, in many games you'd just cheese the game using early game prepromotes, use only the very best units, etc. (Especially in games like Sacred stones and Blazing blade.) For me, the appeal of playing FE is to take my time and smell the roses. Using terrible units who have potential to be powerful, using Ests, these are all little joys in life that amke it beautiful.

That said, I don't dissagree that LTC runs can be fun, I just prefer slower runs. (I also am really bad at FE, so that might play a part.)

And to add to @Jotari, it honestly doesn't matter how good/bad you are.  If you're having fun, it's all good!

[GlitchWarrior]

I don't like FE4.

There, I said it. Is it too much to say? I don't like its giant maps, I don't like its boring political drama, most of its characters are boring to me (as in, the only one I like is Arden. Arden.) and the twist that would probably be it's biggest strength is now common knowledge.

[NekoKnight]

On 1/29/2020 at 12:16 AM, Harvey said:

I however don't understand the criticism of its technical aspects. Yes it doesn't push any boundaries and whatnot but the graphics here are far better than what they have tried for PoR and RD imo.

On 1/29/2020 at 1:05 AM, Ottservia said:

But when you compare 3H to stuff like BoTW and Mario odyssey or hell even pokemon then you can clearly tell that there’s a drastic difference in quality. When pokemon is better on a technical level then you have a problem.

I don't understand why people care about what other games look like when discussing the game they're playing unless the models are legit garbage. Three Houses looked great to me. Prerendered cut scenes could be smoother but most of the game was quite lovely. Does it really affect your enjoyment that much that other games in the same gen have "objectively better" graphics? I've heard people say that BotW looks like shit too.

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I don't understand why people care about what other games look like when discussing the game they're playing unless the models are legit garbage. Three Houses looked great to me. Prerendered cut scenes could be smoother but most of the game was quite lovely. Does it really affect your enjoyment that much that other games in the same gen have "objectively better" graphics? I've heard people say that BotW looks like shit too.

Personally, I don’t care much about graphics in games. I care more about aesthetic if anything which this game does well. That doesn’t mean I won’t criticize the game for where it faults. I mean those fruit textures are just not okay. Also the fact that the game has severe optimization, load time,  and framerate issues. I’m not normally one to complain about graphics and performance but even so. This game definitely has some issues in that area. Three houses looks fine but it certainly not the best they could’ve done given the hardware.

[Shrimpica]

I really don't want a return to Single lord Emblem. I've seen alot of people over the net wanting ''Simple stories'' back, but honestly, until FE16, with the exception of FE9/10 (and let's not forget the blood pact), every story so far was meh thanks to being ''We good guys, other bad guys being controlled by dragon''. I really really don't want a return to that. Ever. Even Jugdral gen2 gets ruined thanks to that.

That doesn't necessarily mean i want route splits forever, but i atleast want multipe prespectives and lords ala Echoes and FE10. Preferably with them facing each other and being enemies.

Some say simple stories can be done well, but that has never been the case in FE. I want a fight between character, ideals, nations, and not we go kick some Dragon's ass.

[Ottservia]

Nuts to all that. Fuck moral gray. I want another pure evil villain that fucks shit up with a smile on his face cause he’s evil and he knows it but he just doesn’t care. I want another villain who is just an arrogant bastard that kills orphans because he can. Like come on those villains are fun

[Ashe02]

I'm tired of multiple routes by this point. 

They are cool don't get me wrong, but I don't like how FE16 has to sacrifice a lot of what it could had been just to fit in four routes into itself. So really I wouldn't mind having a more simple game next time, but I do agree that only having one lord to represent a whole game could be a hit or miss.

However now that having an avatar is every game has become a trend, I don't think we would need to worry about having a single lord in a game. That is as long as they don't do what they did in Fates.

9 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Nuts to all that. Fuck moral gray. I want another pure evil villain that fucks shit up with a smile on his face cause he’s evil and he knows it but he just doesn’t care. I want another villain who is just an arrogant bastard that kills orphans because he can. Like come on those villains are fun

Haha, he sounds like a lovely person. Evil characters who are evil for the sake of being evil can be fun as well, which was something I felt like Three Houses lacked actually. 

I know we had characters who were evil, but they  weren't really developed, and they also weren't what I would call a fun villain. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Ashe02

[Etrurian emperor]

Completely evil characters can be fun but they need a certain charisma or a dominating aura to work properly. Historically Fire Emblem has never really been good at that sort of villains. The recent villains who are pure evil like Garon, Surtr or Thales notably lack any sort of charisma and aside from mister phoenix mode they don't come off as particularly powerful.

When I think of totally evil villains I tend to think of Hades or Metalface. They have such an open glee about being very evil that its hard not to smile when seeing them do their craft. Them being incredibly powerful also ensures they are real threats rather than just goofballs. Metalface might speak with a hilarious British accent and make bad puns but he also repeatedly kicks the party to the curb and knows to hit them where it hurts emotionally. 

I think the closest that Fire Emblem has come to that sort of villain is the Heroes version of Julius. He's very clearly having a lot of fun being evil and he's got a bratty teenager persona that ensures he doesn't take things too seriously. Despite that he's still Satan. A very lazy and immature Satan that apparently spends his time burning insects according to Heroes. 

[Specta]

I'm gonna guess this applies since I've gotten into many arguments about it over the years haha

Personally, I don't really care about the idea of balancing units. I love having some units that are absolute trash and some units that destroy everyone and a bunch of rabble in between. Bring on the wild variety; it adds extra layers of fun gameplay for me 

[Shrimpica]

24 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Nuts to all that. Fuck moral gray. I want another pure evil villain that fucks shit up with a smile on his face cause he’s evil and he knows it but he just doesn’t care. I want another villain who is just an arrogant bastard that kills orphans because he can. Like come on those villains are fun

One way to make me not take a game's story seriously, at all. 

Not like i started/played FE for Story anyway. So it won't bother me that much. But i'd prefer a good story to accompany my gameplay.

16 minutes ago, Ashe02 said:

However now that having an avatar is every game has become a trend, I don't think we would need to worry about having a single lord in a game.

Avatar + Lord will still be one prespective though. Which i am meh on.

5 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The recent villains who are pure evil like Garon, Surtr or Thales notably lack any sort of charisma and aside from mister phoenix mode they don't come off as particularly powerful.

Not only recent ones, but also old ones.

Ya know, my first FE was Fates, with my second being FE4. You know what i thought when i finished FE4? ''So Loptyr is beta-Anakos. A Dragon that ruins a story completely.''

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Shrimperor

[Alastor15243]

I would be absolutely delighted if the dialogue-heavy, exploration-heavy style of Three Houses and Echoes never comes back. Literally the only thing I could think of the first time I was playing Three Houses and going through everything between the prologue and your first battle, and this was before I realized I hated it, mind, was "wow, this not going to age well at all upon replay".

I don't care how amazing or even mind-blowing a story is. The more un-skippable fluff or busywork gets put between chapters of the game, the more I lose my patience, especially on replays. I enjoyed Echoes a lot, but I've never been able to bring myself to fully replay it simply because there's so much dialogue and sidequesting and other shit tacked on to get in the way of what you used to be able to do, which was press start and only have a base and a prep menu between battles, and miss nothing whatsoever of gameplay value by skipping the rest.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Ashe02]

3 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

Avatar + Lord will still be one prespective though. Which i am meh on.

 

They don't have to be though. Maybe the game could be about a Lord + Avatar duo being forced to pick between two sides which are at war, or at least something along those lines. 

....But I guess that might make it too similar to Fates now that I'm thinking about it.

[Ottservia]

18 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

One way to make me not take a game's story seriously, at all. 

Not like i started/played FE for Story anyway. So it won't bother me that much. But i'd prefer a good story to accompany my gameplay.

Yeah so do I, a good story to accompany the gameplay is always a good thing. What you fail to realize is that a pure evil villain can absolutely be used in a good story. Persona 4 was able to do it and I absolutely love Adachi. There are plenty of other stories that can do it too.

[Deathcon]

I don't hate FE RD's and in fact consider it to be at least comparable to PoR. I alos don't hate Micaiah and don't see the Mary Sue comparisons. Finally, I don't dislike Alm or his romance with Celica, which might not be a popular opinion but I seen it alot in the Byleth Opinion Thread*, and that's it.

Shameless thread advertising.

[eclipse]

48 minutes ago, Deathcon said:

I don't hate FE RD's and in fact consider it to be at least comparable to PoR. I alos don't hate Micaiah and don't see the Mary Sue comparisons.

This is the unpopular FE opinion thread!  😛

Ahem. . .

For a villain who's just there to be amorally evil, it takes good character writing to pull off.  Otherwise, we're back to Iago.

[NekoKnight]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Completely evil characters can be fun but they need a certain charisma or a dominating aura to work properly. Historically Fire Emblem has never really been good at that sort of villains. The recent villains who are pure evil like Garon, Surtr or Thales notably lack any sort of charisma and aside from mister phoenix mode they don't come off as particularly powerful.

When I think of totally evil villains I tend to think of Hades or Metalface. They have such an open glee about being very evil that its hard not to smile when seeing them do their craft. Them being incredibly powerful also ensures they are real threats rather than just goofballs. Metalface might speak with a hilarious British accent and make bad puns but he also repeatedly kicks the party to the curb and knows to hit them where it hurts emotionally. 

I think the closest that Fire Emblem has come to that sort of villain is the Heroes version of Julius. He's very clearly having a lot of fun being evil and he's got a bratty teenager persona that ensures he doesn't take things too seriously. Despite that he's still Satan. A very lazy and immature Satan that apparently spends his time burning insects according to Heroes. 

I'd say Ashnard fits the "completely evil" trope just right. There is nothing morally justified about that man but he has a purpose and a view of the world he wants to enforce. Lekain fits as well. In general though, I think the best stories have a mix of the completely unsympathetic and the antagonistic but not without reason kind of villains. To bring up Tellius one again, it's nice having Lekain balanced with the likes of Sephiran. Or Edelgard and the Slither bros.

[eclipse]

Just now, NekoKnight said:

I'd say Ashnard fits the "completely evil" trope just right. There is nothing morally justified about that man but he has a purpose and a view of the world he wants to enforce. Lekain fits as well. In general though, I think the best stories have a mix of the completely unsympathetic and the antagonistic but not without reason kind of villains. To bring up Tellius one again, it's nice having Lekain balanced with the likes of Sephiran. Or Edelgard and the Slither bros.

I felt that Ashnard was practical - the view he had wasn't necessarily evil, just horribly unbalanced.  Lekain does a better job of it, but even then, he's understandable.  I think Valtome would be closer - we have no idea why he's being so unpleasant, but he is, and we have to deal with it.