Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, anikom15 said:

What are you two even arguing about?

Yeah I've kind of lost it. Thought we were talking about Snipers or something to begin with. If it's about the value of locktouch can't we all just agree that it's a nice enough skill but you literally need only one unit to run it and only on every other map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

33 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yeah I've kind of lost it. Thought we were talking about Snipers or something to begin with. If it's about the value of locktouch can't we all just agree that it's a nice enough skill but you literally need only one unit to run it and only on every other map.

How is this even a discussion it's been this way since FE1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, anikom15 said:

How is this even a discussion it's been this way since FE1.

Well while we're there, I find thieves largely useless in all incarnations of the Archanea games. With the exception of the first Castle level of Shadow Dragon (where you need to field Juilan to recruit Rikkard and thus have two thieves at your disposal anyway) thieves in those games are largely useless since Marth can open any number of chests himself and you have to field Marth. True you might not want to Marth to be solely on Chest duty, but the same could be said for a thief, and you'll save enough chest keys by having Marth on chest duty some of the time that using other units with chest keys isn't a major loss at all. Without stealing, thieves are just dedicated chest openers in Archanea games, and the game already gives you one of them in the form of your main lord. That being said you might want to train Julian for combat in Book 2 for entirely unrelated reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like Marth is also good at fighting in FE12, so you may want him to do just that while a thief feeds on the locks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Koops said:

I feel like Marth is also good at fighting in FE12, so you may want him to do just that while a thief feeds on the locks.

Marth's great at fighting in most of his games. Only really Shadow Dragon is he lack luster and even then he's not hopeless. The thing is, you need to deploy someone to do chest duty, and instead of that thief, you could deploy another combat unit. Marth can fight and open chests and has to be deployed anyway, while thieves can only do one of those things (out side of the originally Mystery of the Emblem where any unit can become a godlike combat unit due to growth manipulating items). Marth does everything a thief can do and more. And if you happen to want Marth to be somewhere else, then you have a hearty supply of chest keys obtained throughout the game that will let other units open chests. So long as you use the titular lockpick some of the time then you're in little fear of ever running out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Marth's great at fighting in most of his games. Only really Shadow Dragon is he lack luster and even then he's not hopeless. The thing is, you need to deploy someone to do chest duty, and instead of that thief, you could deploy another combat unit. Marth can fight and open chests and has to be deployed anyway, while thieves can only do one of those things (out side of the originally Mystery of the Emblem where any unit can become a godlike combat unit due to growth manipulating items). Marth does everything a thief can do and more. And if you happen to want Marth to be somewhere else, then you have a hearty supply of chest keys obtained throughout the game that will let other units open chests. So long as you use the titular lockpick some of the time then you're in little fear of ever running out.

In FE1 you don't use keys to open chests. Chests can only be opened by Marth and thieves. Only in the remakes you do get keys to allow other units to open chests.

Otherwise, there are benefits to using thieves besides having Marth available for combat. The primary benefit is multitasking to keep turn counts low. This is actually important aside from golf considerations because a lot of maps with chests have reinforcements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like it's worth noting that while the Fire Emblem lets Marth open chests, the same can't be said of doors, which thieves can open and often block off chests anyway iirc.  

Of course, you can just use door keys, so YMMV on how much of a boon that is, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since TH’s launch, I’ve been annoyed that post-timeskip Edelgard is referred to as Emperor Edelgard. I’m no hierarchy professional, but shouldn’t it be Empress Edelgard, since she’s—you know—a woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Perkilator said:

Ever since TH’s launch, I’ve been annoyed that post-timeskip Edelgard is referred to as Emperor Edelgard. I’m no hierarchy professional, but shouldn’t it be Empress Edelgard, since she’s—you know—a woman?

Meanwhile I'm annoyed that she mispronounces her own damned surname.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Perkilator said:

Ever since TH’s launch, I’ve been annoyed that post-timeskip Edelgard is referred to as Emperor Edelgard. I’m no hierarchy professional, but shouldn’t it be Empress Edelgard, since she’s—you know—a woman?

While not the standards its not an  uncommon trope for a royal title to be masculine regardless of who holds it. 

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SheIsTheKing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Perkilator said:

Ever since TH’s launch, I’ve been annoyed that post-timeskip Edelgard is referred to as Emperor Edelgard. I’m no hierarchy professional, but shouldn’t it be Empress Edelgard, since she’s—you know—a woman?

Clearly Fodlan doesn't believe in gender segregated roles...except when it comes to promoting to a damn Pegasus knight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Perkilator said:

Ever since TH’s launch, I’ve been annoyed that post-timeskip Edelgard is referred to as Emperor Edelgard. I’m no hierarchy professional, but shouldn’t it be Empress Edelgard, since she’s—you know—a woman?

Empress could refer to an emperor's wife. For that reason I prefer emperor for females when they are the ruler. It's less confusing that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term Consort exists. That's how you can designate which half of the couple is the ruler and who is simply the spouse of the ruler.

Personally, I think it's a little sexist otherwise. Declaring one label is inferior to its counterpart on the basis of gender.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

The term Consort exists. That's how you can designate which half of the couple is the ruler and who is simply the spouse of the ruler.

Personally, I think it's a little sexist otherwise. Declaring one label is inferior to its counterpart on the basis of gender.

But isn't it also a bit silly to divide titles by gender to begin with? What next, we attach a gender to every noun in existence and expect people to learn each one individually!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

But isn't it also a bit silly to divide titles by gender to begin with? What next, we attach a gender to every noun in existence and expect people to learn each one individually!?

Too late. Some languages have done it for ages.

In my opinion, if you can have a unisex term, fine. If you can have it gendered, just remember about equity and all that stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Acacia Sgt said:

Too late. Some languages have done it for ages.

 

Yeah, I know. Not sure how obvious I was being about that on retrospect. My point is that it's ridiculous. And gendered titles are just a slight extension (or... shortening?) of the idea.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yeah, I know. Not sure how obvious I was being about that on retrospect. My point is that it's ridiculous. And gendered titles are just a slight extension (or... shortening?) of the idea.

I suppose it's just something that's going to vary.

My native language is Spanish, and it's very gendered. "Table" in English may be gender neutral, but it's a female word in Spanish. We say "La mesa", not "El mesa". The latter sounds weird, but that may be just me being so used to it. Some words are unisex, but still require a gendered pronoun. What you simply use "The" for, we have like four different words for it. Overall, I still consider English to be weirder.

Anyway, that's just how I see it. I don't see any problem, or ridiculousness, in words being gender-divided. So long we remember they are meant to be equals despite the difference, then there should be no issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I suppose it's just something that's going to vary.

My native language is Spanish, and it's very gendered. "Table" in English may be gender neutral, but it's a female word in Spanish. We say "La mesa", not "El mesa". The latter sounds weird, but that may be just me being so used to it. Some words are unisex, but still require a gendered pronoun. What you simply use "The" for, we have like four different words for it. Overall, I still consider English to be weirder.

Anyway, that's just how I see it. I don't see any problem, or ridiculousness, in words being gender-divided. So long we remember they are meant to be equals despite the difference, then there should be no issue.

And then you go and have multiple European languages where the same nouns are gendered differently even though they have the same route word. Bonkers I tell ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Anyway, that's just how I see it. I don't see any problem, or ridiculousness, in words being gender-divided. So long we remember they are meant to be equals despite the difference, then there should be no issue.

Dresses are masculine.

Lucky dudes, them dresses.

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Overall, I still consider English to be weirder.

I agree. Say that again and I'll throw you though, then you will go ow because I am very tough.

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

And then you go and have multiple European languages where the same nouns are gendered differently even though they have the same route word. Bonkers I tell ya.

I mean yeah dude, it's almost like divergent languages will be different. It's kinda neat, honestly. There's probably fascinating reasons for it being that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Dresses are masculine.

Lucky dudes, them dresses.

I agree. Say that again and I'll throw you though, then you will go ow because I am very tough.

I mean yeah dude, it's almost like divergent languages will be different. It's kinda neat, honestly. There's probably fascinating reasons for it being that way.

Hell if I know. Keys are female in Spanish when they're obviously male.

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

. Overall, I still consider English to be weirder.

Somehow missed this first time around, and I do agree. Gendered nouns are still silly though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AnonymousSpeed said:

Who holds the key to your heart?

Your conflating key and key holder. A key is a long rigid object you need to insert into an enclosed space. Inarguably male imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Perkilator said:

I’m no hierarchy professional, but shouldn’t it be Empress Edelgard, since she’s—you know—a woman?

 

4 hours ago, anikom15 said:

Empress could refer to an emperor's wife. For that reason I prefer emperor for females when they are the ruler. It's less confusing that way.

It would be confusing for those of us who do not know the “customs.” If a realm has historically followed a male primogeniture rule, then it is “known” that the female members of the royal house are never the rulers (and the female forms of the titles are only symbolic.)
Even in those exceptions when a woman in a male-preference realm indeed rules, the titles themselves might give us the answer; as it is the case of our beloved Queen Elizabeth and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh.

So, yeah, they should have used “Empress” in the game. There is no reason for us to doubt that Edelgard was indeed the one ruler of the empire.
 

4 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

The term Consort exists. That's how you can designate which half of the couple is the ruler and who is simply the spouse of the ruler.

You also have “regnant” to express the same from an opposite perspective.

 

2 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

My native language is Spanish, and it's very gendered. "Table" in English may be gender neutral, but it's a female word in Spanish.

I think that you are confusing gender with grammatical gender, mate. The qualities of an object have little to do with the grammatical gender of the noun that designates it. A table is a grammatically feminine noun in Spanish and a grammatically masculine noun in German, but not because people found qualities in the object that are actually related to masculinity or femininity. The grammatical gender of this noun might be inherited (say, from Latin) or established by grammatical concordance or similarity through the evolution of the language.

Weirder is that Sun is grammatically masculine in Spanish but grammatically feminine in German. The centre of our planetary system, the symbol of innumerable concepts since the beginning of our existence is “masculine” for millions of people and “feminine” to million others.
Wait, and Moon is grammatically feminine in Spanish but grammatically masculine in German. 🙃

If you ask me, I have never understood why English speakers, in a language with no grammatical gender, refer to ships as if they were feminine. They even have motherships and sister ships. That is weird.

I will stop here, but it is interesting.

Edited by starburst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me started on plugs (LA clavija) and outlets (EL toma-corrientes).

Anyway...

15 minutes ago, starburst said:

In this example, you are confusing gender with grammatical gender, mate. The qualities of an object have little to do with the grammatical gender of the noun that designates it. A table is not a grammatically feminine noun in Spanish nor a grammatically masculine noun in German because people found qualities in the object that are actually related to masculinity or femininity. The grammatical gender of this noun might be inherited (say, from Latin) or established by grammatical concordance or similarity through the evolution of the language.

Weirder is that Sun is grammatically masculine in Spanish but grammatically feminine in German. The centre of our planetary system, the symbol of innumerable concepts since the beginning of our existence is “masculine” for millions of people and “feminine” to million others.
Wait, and Luna is “feminine” in Spanish but “masculine” in German. 🙃

If you ask me, I have never understood why English speakers, in a language with no grammatical gender, refer to ships as if they were feminine. They even have sister ships. It make no sense! 😂

I will stop here, but it is interesting.

Grammatical or not, the designations were made nonetheless. Even if it's not in the same sense as the designations to living beings.

It gets funnier when you consider the Sun is a star, which is feminine, and the Moon is a satellite, which is male. Well, in Spanish at least.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic, so I'm also stopping.

---

Now, to be more on-topic... uh, let's see... I suppose an unpopular opinion could've be that I wished that Radiant Dawn had not done the multi-perspective thing. Or at least, just made it a Part 4 exclusive thing.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Now, to be more on-topic... uh, let's see... I suppose an unpopular opinion could've be that I wished that Radiant Dawn had not done the multi-perspective thing. Or at least, just made it a Part 4 exclusive thing.

So would that mean you pick a side? That way, you can get the complete picture of what is happening on one side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...