What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Jotari]

22 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I mean in terms of practicality, it can only be done in moderation unless the nature of the game is that the enemies win. 

Care to elaborate why you feel this way? 

@Jotari

I meant battlefield victories so I wouldn't count Deirdre getting kidnapped as one of them but it sure is a victory for the villains. 

Well that's why I honed in on Deirdre getting kidnapped as one of the worse examples. That actually could have been a battlefield loss if done in a different way (difficult due to Genealogy's open map layout). If they can integrate the gameplay with the defeat then it changes the feeling of it entirely. Such as Cuan and Ethlyn's death, an example I forgot to mention before. That even involves a kidnapping too. If they'd made the chapter in such a way that Deirdre and some NPC guards appear on the battle field at a certain point, only for a mob of Manfroy's mages to intercept them after a few turns while simultaneously making it impossible for Sigurd's army to get to her (preferably utilizing geography and not the yellow tiles of arbitrary impassibility) then I think it would resonate much better (as compared to now where most people just say Deirdre is stupid for wandering away on her own and Manfroy's teleportation powers are outright broken). Once again I point to Ethlyn's stoning as a great example of this.

As far as pure military defeats go (in terms of plot, not visible gameplay), of the 24 examples I listed above, a good deal over half are military defeats (I say over half because some are rather vague as to what you'd call a military defeat, such as the Battle of Barhara or Roy getting outmatched by Bern which is a military defeat without an actual accompanying battle, and is narratively framed as Roy's success in the face of adversity, though Hector still dies with that early game conflict which is treated as a major loss). I guess where's you're issue is that you wish player defeats happened more in Fire Emblem, I'd say they happen frequently enough, I just want them to happen better.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Jotari

[Acacia Sgt]

28 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Care to elaborate why you feel this way? 

Well, it's somewhat unfair to them. They're already have to content with being mostly newcomers to the setting, whose spotlight came and went too soon, being stuck as designated bad guys through a stupid plot device that wasn't even needed when you look at Daein at large, and then what little the player gets to control them in that part of the game amount to short-lasting victories that ultimately get undone almost as soon as they happened. Might as well not have those chapters at all. Game could've used a choice path there instead. Give us a choice of which side of the war was having the upper hand before Part 4 happens.

That's just me, however...

[Icelerate]

3 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Well, it's somewhat unfair to them. They're already have to content with being mostly newcomers to the setting, whose spotlight came and went too soon, being stuck as designated bad guys through a stupid plot device that wasn't even needed when you look at Daein at large, and then what little the player gets to control them in that part of the game amount to short-lasting victories that ultimately get undone almost as soon as they happened. Might as well not have those chapters at all. Game could've used a choice path there instead. Give us a choice of which side of the war was having the upper hand before Part 4 happens.

That's just me, however...

I think it's great that they are losing due to lack of experience and resources so they make a great underdog faction. Don't see how having a choice would make it better as it creates two different timelines for no reason. 

[Acacia Sgt]

5 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I think it's great that they are losing due to lack of experience and resources so they make a great underdog faction. Don't see how having a choice would make it better as it creates two different timelines for no reason. 

Still leaves a bad mouth taste when it's every single chapter they have (and are loosing anyway when they aren't the playable faction). Granted, three isn't much, but it's still a 100% rate. More so when two are back-to-back.

Never said better. Don't see why would it matter. Outside of "enough chaos it awakes the goddess", Part 4 ultimately doesn't care how we got there. So the details of Part 3 are meaningless for the general picture of the narrative. Could've been Daein and Begnion actually winning against the Alliance. As long the Galdr is sung, Part 4 would only change it's starting location, and not much else.

Of course, this means it also means why bother with more than one sequence of events. I just stand in the opinion it would've made Part 3 interesting and gave it some more replay value if we could choose who was winning the war before Part 4 makes it meaningless.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Acacia Sgt

[Icelerate]

4 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Still leaves a bad mouth taste when it's every single chapter they have (and are loosing anyway when they aren't the playable faction). Granted, three isn't much, but it's still a 100% rate. More so when two are back-to-back.

Never said better. Don't see why would it matter. Outside of "enough chaos it awakes the goddess", Part 4 ultimately doesn't care how we got there. So the details of Part 3 are meaningless for the general picture of the narrative. Could've been Daein and Begnion actually winning against the Alliance. As long the Galdr is sung, Part 4 would only change it's starting location, and not much else.

Of course, this means it also means why bother with more than one sequence of events. I just stand in the opinion it would've made Part 3 interesting and gave it some more replay value if we could choose who was winning the war before Part 4 makes it meaningless.

They still inflict heavy casualties so its not like they are completely losing. 

If it isn't better, then.. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. No, all the steps of the narrative are meaningful, not just the end result. Or else complaining about the blood pact is futile because the end result doesn't matter whether blood pact was used or not. 

After Three Houses I think less routes is preferable. 

 

[Acacia Sgt]

Just now, Icelerate said:

They still inflict heavy casualties so its not like they are completely losing. 

If it isn't better, then.. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. No, all the steps of the narrative are meaningful, not just the end result. Or else complaining about the blood pact is futile because the end result doesn't matter whether blood pact was used or not. 

After Three Houses I think less routes is preferable. 

 

Which we're only told. Yet their progress remains unimpeded. The Alliance keeps advancing through Daein, despite those "only told heavy losses". Had the chaos not reached the turning point, they would've been able to cross into Begnion, who would've likely still be caught in their civil war. Daein too decimated or exhausted but likely still forced by the Senate to pursue the Alliance.

That's a Complacency Fallacy. Don't settle for less. Which is why I said "outside of". The Blood Pacts are a plot device used to make sure the war keeps going to generate enough chaos to awaken Ashera. Part 4 doesn't care how it's happening, only that it's happening. I, however, can think that as a way to keep the war going there could've been ideas subjectively or even objectively better to reach that goal. It ain't broke, but it sure needs preventive maintenance to lessen the impact once it does break.

That's why I only think that if it doesn't matter how we get there, then having more than one road could be an option. Could.

I could agree on less routes, if only because I feel it makes the story tie itself in a dead-end. After all, in this day and age, who would risk the possible backlash of declaring one route canon over the other?

[Icelerate]

11 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Which we're only told. Yet their progress remains

That's why I only think that if it doesn't matter how we get there, then having more than one road could be an option. Could.

I could agree on less routes, if only because I feel it makes the story tie itself in a dead-end. After all, in this day and age, who would risk the possible backlash of declaring one route canon over the other?

unimpeded. The Alliance keeps advancing through Daein, despite those "only told heavy losses". Had the chaos not reached the turning point, they would've been able to cross into Begnion, who would've likely still be caught in their civil war. Daein too decimated or exhausted but likely still forced by the Senate to pursue the Alliance.

 

If their progress was unimpeded, they'd be in Begnion already, not eventually. We're also shown this not told. Remember when the Apostle's Army and Crimean Knights were decimated? It also had a gameplay effect where in the last couple of chapters you don't have their armies active and instead it is the laguz alliance that does the fighting. 

Quote

That's a Complacency Fallacy. Don't settle for less. Which is why I said "outside of". The Blood Pacts are a plot device used to make sure the war keeps going to generate enough chaos to awaken Ashera. Part 4 doesn't care how it's happening, only that it's happening. I, however, can think that as a way to keep the war going there could've been ideas subjectively or even objectively better to reach that goal. It ain't broke, but it sure needs preventive maintenance to lessen the impact once it does break.

I'm not convinced that making a split route would improve the game's story instead of arbitrarily making it more complicated with a timeline split. Sometimes less is more. I think you're using subjectively and objectively wrong, what exactly do you mean?

Quote

That's why I only think that if it doesn't matter how we get there, then having more than one road could be an option. Could.

I could agree on less routes, if only because I feel it makes the story tie itself in a dead-end. After all, in this day and age, who would risk the possible backlash of declaring one route canon over the other?

Yes, it can be an option, not necessarily a good one. I think it works in Three Houses because the player makes the decision which drastically alters the plot. In RD, due to not having a playable avatar, there'd be less player agency except for minor things such as deciding whether to kill Pelleas. At best it'd be similar to Sacred Stones but in Sacred Stones, both Ephraim and Eirika's journeys still happen the way they do except we don't see one of them. Your argument is that we choose which side wins in RD but I think playing as the losing side and also fighting your own units is a great idea. Fighting against yourself is something only RD does and it makes for some amusing scenarios. 

What do you mean "tie itself in a dead-end". 

[Acacia Sgt]

30 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

If their progress was unimpeded, they'd be in Begnion already, not eventually. We're also shown this not told. Remember when the Apostle's Army and Crimean Knights were decimated? It also had a gameplay effect where in the last couple of chapters you don't have their armies active and instead it is the laguz alliance that does the fighting. 

It doesn't change the fact they're still advancing. In fact, dialogue in 3-13 shows the Laguz still outnumber the Daein forces by quite the margin.

Ranulf:
“Ten thousand? They aren’t really going to try to fight us with only ten thousand men, are they?”

Skrimir:
“What are they thinking? It’d be suicide! Even if they matched our numbers, the difference in fighting ability is as clear as day. Laguz and Beorc fighting one on one… I don’t need to tell you who’s going to win.”

Which shows why Micaiah had to resort to the oil tactic. So despite whatever losses they incur, they're still gaining ground. It's seen best with 3-12 and 3-13 itself. Despite the decimation of the Apostle and Crimean forces, the Daein forces were still forced to retreat to Nox Castle. And then no matter how many Laguz you defeat, or even defeating the mercs, or even beating Ike himself. You still loose. The Alliance storms Nox, and Daein gets pushed even further back. It's likely this is why Sephiran considered best to engineer the civil war in Begnion. Just like in the beginning of Part 3, if the Alliance is simply winning victory after victory, there won't be enough chaos. The civil war in Begnion is to help add chaos, as it'd be much less one-sided than the Alliance-Daein war.

Actually, it only matters during 3-13. You can deploy your Crimean units just fine in 3-E. Even Sigrun and Tanith are deployable. Heck, Sigrun is forced to participate in 3-E. If that's what you mean by the Alliance being the only faction still present. And once more the numbers game comes into play. Daein is outnumbered and outmatched. If it wasn't for the chaos reaching a turning point, the Alliance would soon break into Begnion. In just a few days time  the Alliance was already about three-quarters close to the mountain pass we saw in PoR's Ch18. They were already that close to Begnion.

51 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I'm not convinced that making a split route would improve the game's story instead of arbitrarily making it more complicated with a timeline split. Sometimes less is more. I think you're using subjectively and objectively wrong, what exactly do you mean?

Well, just like you say: arbitrarily. Can easily not be that complicated and be an improvement. Shows the story has flexibility even if it's futile in the end. Since, again, Part 4 doesn't care how it got to that point, only that it happens. It's arguably not that complicated. Change it so the Alliance has to cross the same way they got in during early Part 3 because Daein pushed them that back, and they'd still need to go from northern Begnion to Sienne, just like in OTL Part 4, so the group might still split up. The Disciples are the ones starting the battles, so it matters little where they happen, as they simply warp in to the needed location. Even a northwest approach instead of strict north will make you pass through places like the Duchy of Tanas and the Gran Desert, so characters like Tormod and company and Stefan can still join the group without changing anything. Only big outlier is Izuka, but the narrative can simply apply Schrödinger's principle, and have Izuka's location change depending on the route, so fighting him still happens.

Well, I'm not here to convince you. I just stated it would be interesting if a timeline happened during Part 3 and why I thought that. Since Part 4 wouldn't be that affected, it'd be fine. If it's an unpopular opinion, well, so be it. This is the thread for unpopular opinions.

Ah, just covering my bases. Wouldn't want someone trying to claim I'm saying or doing something I'm not. I think there are better ways to escalate the war without the Blood Pact. Is it a subjective opinion, or an objective fact? I don't know, so I use both terms as an either/or.

58 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Yes, it can be an option, not necessarily a good one. I think it works in Three Houses because the player makes the decision which drastically alters the plot. In RD, due to not having a playable avatar, there'd be less player agency except for minor things such as deciding whether to kill Pelleas. At best it'd be similar to Sacred Stones but in Sacred Stones, both Ephraim and Eirika's journeys still happen the way they do except we don't see one of them. Your argument is that we choose which side wins in RD but I think playing as the losing side and also fighting your own units is a great idea. Fighting against yourself is something only RD does and it makes for some amusing scenarios. 

What do you mean "tie itself in a dead-end". 

Well, no way we can't have both. As shown with RD's only path, we get to play a few chapters with the losers. So nothing says it can't happen with a route split scenario. A scenario where Daein and Begnion are winning the war, we get also a few chapters with the Alliance and the Mercs where despite their "victories", they still loose. Enough chaos is still generated to satisfy the trigger for Part 4 either way, and we move on. That's why I think it could be interesting if we had that choice. Even if it matters little in the end as the end result would be the same: Galdr gets sung, Ashera petrifies all but the PC's, and the long march to Seinne begins while hindered by the Disciples of Order. Since we could at least choose how we get there, instead of just having the one route.

Well, I brought it up right afterwards. Do you think Three Houses could have a sequel, considering the differences between all four routes? Considering the reception to Fates routes, specially since it has the one true route where any likely continuity can originate from, something similar might happen here.

It's something that could happen in general. Would we ever have an Elder Scrolls game that answers who wins the Skyrim civil war? An actual Fallout game that tells us who won the Second Battle of Hoover Dam? Who the Sole Survivor sided in Boston? It's very possible that for long a direct continuation might not happen, and so the story is in limbo, a dead-end state as they can't go forward without actually giving an answer to ambiguous situations, where every answer can have its backslash. Not every situation can pull a Daggerfall and declare all are canon. I don't think you can pull a Warp in the West for something like Three Houses. Maybe.

Ultimately, any answer might end in cop-out, where we simply skip ahead for too long the answer doesn't matter; or a surprise option happens that wasn't present in the original scenarios.

So yeah, that what I'd think on the matter.

[Icelerate]

22 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

It doesn't change the fact they're still advancing. In fact, dialogue in 3-13 shows the Laguz still outnumber the Daein forces by quite the margin.

Ranulf:
“Ten thousand? They aren’t really going to try to fight us with only ten thousand men, are they?”

Skrimir:
“What are they thinking? It’d be suicide! Even if they matched our numbers, the difference in fighting ability is as clear as day. Laguz and Beorc fighting one on one… I don’t need to tell you who’s going to win.”

Which shows why Micaiah had to resort to the oil tactic. So despite whatever losses they incur, they're still gaining ground. It's seen best with 3-12 and 3-13 itself. Despite the decimation of the Apostle and Crimean forces, the Daein forces were still forced to retreat to Nox Castle. And then no matter how many Laguz you defeat, or even defeating the mercs, or even beating Ike himself. You still loose. The Alliance storms Nox, and Daein gets pushed even further back. It's likely this is why Sephiran considered best to engineer the civil war in Begnion. Just like in the beginning of Part 3, if the Alliance is simply winning victory after victory, there won't be enough chaos. The civil war in Begnion is to help add chaos, as it'd be much less one-sided than the Alliance-Daein war.

Actually, it only matters during 3-13. You can deploy your Crimean units just fine in 3-E. Even Sigrun and Tanith are deployable. Heck, Sigrun is forced to participate in 3-E. If that's what you mean by the Alliance being the only faction still present. And once more the numbers game comes into play. Daein is outnumbered and outmatched. If it wasn't for the chaos reaching a turning point, the Alliance would soon break into Begnion. In just a few days time  the Alliance was already about three-quarters close to the mountain pass we saw in PoR's Ch18. They were already that close to Begnion.

Never said they aren't advancing. Yes because the Laguz Alliance had greater numbers at the start of the war. What I'm saying is that it's nice to be able to fight for an army that is constantly losing. I don't see how that's frustrating. If you're losing, you feel more excitement due to the situation being dire and intense. Do you think Gen 1 of Geneology is frustrating because the end of chapter 5 ends up undoing everything Sigurd did in chapter 5? 

Deploying individual units doesn't mean you're deploying the entire Crimean and Begnion army. The fact that we see the NPC armies and none of them are beorc goes to show how heavy the losses were. So your statement that it is only stated nor shown is false. 

Yes they were close to Begnion but still had not made it into Begnion. If it wasn't for Daein's efforts, the Alliance would have been in Begnion by chapter 3-11, let alone after 3E.

Quote

Well, just like you say: arbitrarily. Can easily not be that complicated and be an improvement. Shows the story has flexibility even if it's futile in the end. Since, again, Part 4 doesn't care how it got to that point, only that it happens. It's arguably not that complicated. Change it so the Alliance has to cross the same way they got in during early Part 3 because Daein pushed them that back, and they'd still need to go from northern Begnion to Sienne, just like in OTL Part 4, so the group might still split up. The Disciples are the ones starting the battles, so it matters little where they happen, as they simply warp in to the needed location. Even a northwest approach instead of strict north will make you pass through places like the Duchy of Tanas and the Gran Desert, so characters like Tormod and company and Stefan can still join the group without changing anything. Only big outlier is Izuka, but the narrative can simply apply Schrödinger's principle, and have Izuka's location change depending on the route, so fighting him still happens.

No, having more routes makes things more complicated but it doesn't necessarily mean worse. However, considering how ambitious RD was, don't you think it is too much to expect the writers to make a coherent route split in part 3 when part 3 is already quite messy? I don't see the wisdom in being even more ambitious when RD is arguably more ambitious than it should be. 

I think Daein pushing the far stronger coalition that far back would be more contrived unless you can have Sanaki not get rescued and in that case united Begnion and Daein can actually go on the offensive into Crimea and eventually Gallia. 

Quote

Ah, just covering my bases. Wouldn't want someone trying to claim I'm saying or doing something I'm not. I think there are better ways to escalate the war without the Blood Pact. Is it a subjective opinion, or an objective fact? I don't know, so I use both terms as an either/or.

In that case, I would fix the blood pact or remove it instead of adding another timeline as that doesn't solve the underlying problem. 

Quote

Well, I brought it up right afterwards. Do you think Three Houses could have a sequel, considering the differences between all four routes? Considering the reception to Fates routes, specially since it has the one true route where any likely continuity can originate from, something similar might happen here.

It's something that could happen in general. Would we ever have an Elder Scrolls game that answers who wins the Skyrim civil war? An actual Fallout game that tells us who won the Second Battle of Hoover Dam? Who the Sole Survivor sided in Boston? It's very possible that for long a direct continuation might not happen, and so the story is in limbo, a dead-end state as they can't go forward without actually giving an answer to ambiguous situations, where every answer can have its backslash. Not every situation can pull a Daggerfall and declare all are canon. I don't think you can pull a Warp in the West for something like Three Houses. Maybe.

Ultimately, any answer might end in cop-out, where we simply skip ahead for too long the answer doesn't matter; or a surprise option happens that wasn't present in the original scenarios.

So yeah, that what I'd think on the matter.

I don't think they will make a sequel but they could theoretically make it. 

All routes are canon. The opposite of canon is fanon and that's not the case with any of the routes. They happen based on what the player chooses. 

[Acacia Sgt]

28 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Never said they aren't advancing. Yes because the Laguz Alliance had greater numbers at the start of the war. What I'm saying is that it's nice to be able to fight for an army that is constantly losing. I don't see how that's frustrating. If you're losing, you feel more excitement due to the situation being dire and intense. Do you think Gen 1 of Geneology is frustrating because the end of chapter 5 ends up undoing everything Sigurd did in chapter 5? 

Deploying individual units doesn't mean you're deploying the entire Crimean and Begnion army. The fact that we see the NPC armies and none of them are beorc goes to show how heavy the losses were. So your statement that it is only stated nor shown is false. 

Yes they were close to Begnion but still had not made it into Begnion. If it wasn't for Daein's efforts, the Alliance would have been in Begnion by chapter 3-11, let alone after 3E.

Never said you did. I did stated I thought it was fine in moderation. The problem is when it becomes a constant affair.

It actually doesn't. His own personal struggle ends for naught, but everyone makes use of what he did along the way, it doesn't get undone. It's done in moderation as Sigurd's victories don't get invalidated, simply appropriated for others to exploit.

It's a video game. The NPC Laguz represent the still larger armies the Laguz still have. Your Crimean units are meant to represent the still present Crimean forces, while Sigrun and Tanith do the same for the Apostle's. It ain't false, just the conservation of detail at work.

The point is that they weren't stopped. The Daein army was no more or less than a nuisance, not a true obstacle. An engineered nuisance, since it was all part of Sephiran's end goal to awaken Ashera. Generate the chaos needed to awaken Ashera. It didn't mattered how it went, so long the fighting wasn't going to end. Once word reached Sephiran that the Alliance still made it to Begnion, and should there still not be enough chaos, it's likely he'd pull something else to prolongue the war even further. We won't know since between the civil war and the Alliance-Daein war, enough chaos was generated anyway.

28 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

No, having more routes makes things more complicated but it doesn't necessarily mean worse. However, considering how ambitious RD was, don't you think it is too much to expect the writers to make a coherent route split in part 3 when part 3 is already quite messy? I don't see the wisdom in being even more ambitious when RD is arguably more ambitious than it should be. 

I think Daein pushing the far stronger coalition that far back would be more contrived unless you can have Sanaki not get rescued and in that case united Begnion and Daein can actually go on the offensive into Crimea and eventually Gallia. 

No, it makes them more complex, not more complicated. There is a difference. Whether more complexity means complication is up to debate. You're right, however, in that RD was already quite ambitious. Hm, how was Part 3 messy? It's coherent, even if some aspects are questionable.

Well, that'd be the beauty of a route split. Events don't have to be the exact same for both routes.

28 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

In that case, I would fix the blood pact or remove it instead of adding another timeline as that doesn't solve the underlying problem. 

Those are two separate issues actually. I agree on the notion of doing away the blood pact and look for a more organic method. It does not conflict with wanting a separate route where Begnion and Daein are winning instead of the Alliance, however. That's a separate thing altogether.

28 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I don't think they will make a sequel but they could theoretically make it. 

All routes are canon. The opposite of canon is fanon and that's not the case with any of the routes. They happen based on what the player chooses. 

Yes, they could, but it wouldn't be a simple affair.

That's like saying none are. It's meaningless. To be honest, I also dislike the notion of the multiverse validating every possibility. It's a cop-out. Canon is meant to be the one true thing. Not everything at once being true. I don't mind in the dabbling of what-ifs and stuff, however. It's a fun exercise.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Acacia Sgt

[Icelerate]

31 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Never said you did. I did stated I thought it was fine in moderation. The problem is when it becomes a constant affair.

 

Good thing there was no constant affair of losses unlike other FE games where there are a string of losses, for the enemy army.

Quote

It actually doesn't. His own personal struggle ends for naught, but everyone makes use of what he did along the way, it doesn't get undone. It's done in moderation as Sigurd's victories don't get invalidated, simply appropriated for others to exploit.

Prove that everyone makes use of what he did along the way.

Quote

It's a video game. The NPC Laguz represent the still larger armies the Laguz still have. Your Crimean units are meant to represent the still present Crimean forces, while Sigrun and Tanith do the same for the Apostle's. It ain't false, just the conservation of detail at work.

We don't see entire armies of beorc after chapter 3-12 unlike laguz. Just some parts of the beorc armies and the Greil Mercenaries.

Quote

The point is that they weren't stopped. The Daein army was no more or less than a nuisance, not a true obstacle. An engineered nuisance, since it was all part of Sephiran's end goal to awaken Ashera. Generate the chaos needed to awaken Ashera. It didn't mattered how it went, so long the fighting wasn't going to end. Once word reached Sephiran that the Alliance still made it to Begnion, and should there still not be enough chaos, it's likely he'd pull something else to prolongue the war even further. We won't know since between the civil war and the Alliance-Daein war, enough chaos was generated anyway.

They were slowed down. Whether or not they were stopped doesn't matter to the topic at hand. Daein was still recovering from the Mad King War and were fighting multiple armies so it being a nuisance instead of a true obstacle is fine IMO. I think Daein being able to fight on par with them would be worse writing. 

Quote

No, it makes them more complex, not more complicated. There is a difference. Whether more complexity means complication is up to debate. You're right, however, in that RD was already quite ambitious. Hm, how was Part 3 messy? It's coherent, even if some aspects are questionable.

Well, that'd be the beauty of a route split. Events don't have to be the exact same for both routes.

The Apostle's Army did not need to go through Daein if they wanted to sneak past Daein. After securing the bridge, it's not explained why they went into Daein instead of the Crimean-Begnion border. 

Quote

Those are two separate issues actually. I agree on the notion of doing away the blood pact and look for a more organic method. It does not conflict with wanting a separate route where Begnion and Daein are winning instead of the Alliance, however. That's a separate thing altogether.

It's not separate because both require time and effort to plan. If the blood pact is lazy writing, chances are the writers did not have the time, cohesion or talent to write a more organic war and if that's the case, why would you expect them to be able to write multiple routes in an already huge story? Most split route stories end up being shorter anyway even if they reuse similar narrative beats.

 

Quote

Yes, they could, but it wouldn't be a simple affair.

That's like saying none are. It's meaningless. To be honest, I also dislike the notion of the multiverse validating every possibility. It's a cop-out. Canon is meant to be the one true thing. Not everything at once being true. I don't mind in the dabbling of what-ifs and stuff, however. It's a fun exercise.

None of them being canon means they are all fanon which is not the case. Unless I'm under the black and white fallacy where my assumption that it is either canon or fanon is incorrect and there's another category. 

It certainly is a fun exercise, what do you think of Micaiah sparing or killing Pelleas? Which would be canon? The default is that he dies and usually I think default is canon. But happy endings are usually canon so in that case, Pelleas surviving should be canon. 

[Acacia Sgt]

50 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Good thing there was no constant affair of losses unlike other FE games where there are a string of losses, for the enemy army.

For Daein? There certainly was.

They fail to prevent the Laguz from retreating across the river. They fail to hold Oribe Bridge. They fail to fully implement the oil plan. They fail to force the Alliance to withdraw. They fail to stop the Alliance from advancing. They fail to hold Nox Castle. They were failing holding the area where 3-E happens. It's a constant affair of losses like in other FE games.

50 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Prove that everyone makes use of what he did along the way.

It wasn't everyone, you know. But yes, there were examples.

Sigurd's victories in Verdane and Agustria never get undone, as Grannvale quickly moved in. They take advantage to move in and assert their control of the region. Easy annexations, basically.

Sigurd's victory in eliminating Lombard and Reptor never gets undone either, as it was also something Arvis wanted. To eliminate competition and the trouble they'd bring to his plans once they served their purposes.

Most of Sigurd's actions served the agenda of someone else. That's why no effort is done to invalidate them.

 

50 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

We don't see entire armies of beorc after chapter 3-12 unlike laguz. Just some parts of the beorc armies and the Greil Mercenaries.

Again, it's conservation of detail in a video game. We don't see all the "ten thousand soldiers" the Daein army has either. This isn't Three Houses, when we could finally a better representation ratio through the battalions. They're there, the game just isn't showing us. Just like how the 3-E cutscene only shows beasts and Daein soldiers. Despite the hawks and the Alliance beorc also being there. Though to be fair, the cutscene is meant to focus on only the area the beast divisions are, since Skrimir and Ranulf are shown overseeing the battlefield.

50 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

They were slowed down. Whether or not they were stopped doesn't matter to the topic at hand. Daein was still recovering from the Mad King War and were fighting multiple armies so it being a nuisance instead of a true obstacle is fine IMO. I think Daein being able to fight on par with them would be worse writing. 

It does. Since it matters on the subject of Daein still losing despite "winning", and thus whether or one want to play a constant chain of events that all boil to that same "win, but you still lose" attitude. Since they failed to stop the Alliance from advancing, which is the reason they're acting in the first place, it does stand to reason they are losing. Which puts into question how enjoyable would it be playing though every single of their defeats.

Yeah, on their own they wouldn't against the entire alliance. Which is why if the writing wanted them to win instead, the situation would be different. Having the Alliance's luck turn for the worst, keep Begnion in the war... and the ravens! Making them go AWOL for the rest of the game was also a big mistake of RD if you ask me. Makes their betrayal very artificial, since they do that and then leave left stage. Of course, this doesn't happen because the narrative is for the Alliance to not get stopped by Daein. Makes good for an alternate what-if, though.

50 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

The Apostle's Army did not need to go through Daein if they wanted to sneak past Daein. After securing the bridge, it's not explained why they went into Daein instead of the Crimean-Begnion border. 

It was.

The Alliance was discussing going back in through the same way they used in early Part 3. That plan got derailed because Daein began to attack again. That's the reason they didn't return to their original plan after Oribe Bridge. Because they didn't wanted for Daein to pursue them from behind. Best to confront them head on if fighting them becomes inevitable.

50 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

It's not separate because both require time and effort to plan. If the blood pact is lazy writing, chances are the writers did not have the time, cohesion or talent to write a more organic war and if that's the case, why would you expect them to be able to write multiple routes in an already huge story? Most split route stories end up being shorter anyway even if they reuse similar narrative beats.

It's separate since one can be done without the other. Changing the one route that was planned takes less effort than doing that and making up a different new route. Though it's true, if they couldn't put enough effort for the one route, then planning a second one would be less likely to be done as well. In the end, though, I'm not expecting them to. I only expressed my opinion of liking the idea of a second route existing. Not to judge how they would've handled it.

50 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

None of them being canon means they are all fanon which is not the case. Unless I'm under the black and white fallacy where my assumption that it is either canon or fanon is incorrect and there's another category. 

It certainly is a fun exercise, what do you think of Micaiah sparing or killing Pelleas? Which would be canon? The default is that he dies and usually I think default is canon. But happy endings are usually canon so in that case, Pelleas surviving should be canon. 

Non-Canon =/= Fanon. Yes, you'd be under a White-and-Black Fallacy to claim otherwise.

I disagree on the default being canon. Because FE itself has disagreed too. Take Blazing Sword. The Marcus-Merlinus paired ending is the canon one for both characters, because it's what matches what Binding Blade establishes about them. However, it is not their default ending. At the same time, because their non-canon endings exist, it can't be the product of fanon, because it wasn't the fandom who came up with that. The game did.

That's what fanon mostly boils down to. What the fans make up. It can go hand in hand with non-canon, mostly since they fall under the loophole of "We're not told it's non-canon, so it could still be"; but it's not the same. As non-canon things are also supplied by the creators themselves. Thus not fanon. Fanon would be to reject canon for the non-canon, too.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Acacia Sgt

[AnonymousSpeed]

The problems with FE4 have nothing to do with its unique mechanics.

[Alastor15243]

15 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

The problems with FE4 have nothing to do with its unique mechanics.

Interesting. Do elaborate.

[Samz707]

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

 

 

Again, it's conservation of detail in a video game. We don't see all the "ten thousand soldiers" the Daein army has either. This isn't Three Houses, when we could finally a better representation ratio through the battalions. They're there, the game just isn't showing us. Just like how the 3-E cutscene only shows beasts and Daein soldiers. Despite the hawks and the Alliance beorc also being there. Though to be fair, the cutscene is meant to focus on only the area the beast divisions are, since Skrimir and Ranulf are shown overseeing the battlefield.

Wait do they? 

Bit off-topic, I know but I'm pretty sure generic troops in the background of battles show up even you have no batallions (Such as the prologue) and in the one battle I did with them they didn't seem to increase the troops in the backgrounds.

 

[null]

4 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

The problems with FE4 have nothing to do with its unique mechanics.

I would most likely agree with you, but what do you mean specifically by "unique mechanics"? For me, the biggest issues are the map size, chapter length, and clunky controls and interface. The game is made artificially longer due to the time spent traveling from place to place instead of actual content increasing its length, in my opinion.

Edited July 7, 2020 by twilitfalchion

[Benice]

4 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

The problems with FE4 have nothing to do with its unique mechanics.

Totally agree-the Pawn shop, individual items and whatnot aren't what made the game boring for me, but the map size not matching the map content, if you know what I mean.

Well, that and Sigurd. The game is much more fun without him. That's why I've had much more fun in gen 2 thus far.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Benice

[AnonymousSpeed]

7 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Interesting. Do elaborate.

3 hours ago, twilitfalchion said:

I would most likely agree with you, but what do you mean specifically by "unique mechanics"? For me, the biggest issues are the map size, chapter length, and clunky controls and interface. The game is made artificially longer due to the time spent traveling from place to place instead of actual content increasing its length, in my opinion.

3 hours ago, Benice said:

Totally agree-the Pawn shop, individual items and whatnot aren't what made the game boring for me, but the map size not matching the map content, if you know what I mean.

Well, that and Sigurd. The game is much more fun without him. That's why I've had much more fun in gen 2 thus far.

So, like Benice said, the pawn shop and individual gold and inheritance mechanics are fine. I think they're actually really interesting, and I especially like how thieves function in that framework. The static weapon ranks are fine, they're actually preferable to leveling them up slowly in the GBA games. I like rescuing villages and getting rings.

I think the controls are fine, aside from checking enemy ranges which is kind of annoying. We're all playing this illegally though, so the majority of control issues we have are our own fault.

I don't even think the big maps are a problem, especially not with the generous save feature or warp staff.

The problem is that it's kinda boring.

I like pairing up units and planning who gets and passes down what and all, but the moment to moment gameplay, the core tactical Fire Emblem elements, are dull. I think the generous save feature can actually harm it in this regard, because the game starts to feel really easy. The large maps aren't a problem except for how every enemy challenge seems to be a homogeneous 2x6 block of this that or the other, so you get in range of one formation and taking them all out in one turn can present some actual challenge, as if you were playing a tactical game. However, it's a big of a slough getting from fight to fight, and the homogeneity of enemy formations means that you can't really pick who gets exposed to what, since they mostly present the same threat.

When one of your pairings goes awry or someone marries someone you didn't intend, that's when things can get obscenely boring, because that's when you have to repeat much larger chunks of the map except now you have glued two of your units together instead of merely handcuffed them.

So yeah. It's a really interesting game and I like it's unique mechanics, but I wish the actual maps were as fun as planning the arena. I'd love to see the concepts revisited properly.

***

Also supercanto is an indirect buff to infantry, since the horses can hit an enemy and then clear space for the infantry to come in and finish off the stragglers. If mounted units are getting to the enemy first enemy, but they're also occupying all the tiles that you can attack them from, where are the infantry supposed to go?

[GlitchWarrior]

27 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Also supercanto is an indirect buff to infantry, since the horses can hit an enemy and then clear space for the infantry to come in and finish off the stragglers. If mounted units are getting to the enemy first enemy, but they're also occupying all the tiles that you can attack them from, where are the infantry supposed to go?

I never thought of it like that. It's honestly way nicer than I thought it was for infantry.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

So, like Benice said, the pawn shop and individual gold and inheritance mechanics are fine. I think they're actually really interesting, and I especially like how thieves function in that framework. The static weapon ranks are fine, they're actually preferable to leveling them up slowly in the GBA games. I like rescuing villages and getting rings.

I think the controls are fine, aside from checking enemy ranges which is kind of annoying. We're all playing this illegally though, so the majority of control issues we have are our own fault.

I don't even think the big maps are a problem, especially not with the generous save feature or warp staff.

The problem is that it's kinda boring.

I like pairing up units and planning who gets and passes down what and all, but the moment to moment gameplay, the core tactical Fire Emblem elements, are dull. I think the generous save feature can actually harm it in this regard, because the game starts to feel really easy. The large maps aren't a problem except for how every enemy challenge seems to be a homogeneous 2x6 block of this that or the other, so you get in range of one formation and taking them all out in one turn can present some actual challenge, as if you were playing a tactical game. However, it's a big of a slough getting from fight to fight, and the homogeneity of enemy formations means that you can't really pick who gets exposed to what, since they mostly present the same threat.

When one of your pairings goes awry or someone marries someone you didn't intend, that's when things can get obscenely boring, because that's when you have to repeat much larger chunks of the map except now you have glued two of your units together instead of merely handcuffed them.

So yeah. It's a really interesting game and I like it's unique mechanics, but I wish the actual maps were as fun as planning the arena. I'd love to see the concepts revisited properly.

***

Also supercanto is an indirect buff to infantry, since the horses can hit an enemy and then clear space for the infantry to come in and finish off the stragglers. If mounted units are getting to the enemy first enemy, but they're also occupying all the tiles that you can attack them from, where are the infantry supposed to go?

And also weapon weights are horrendously lobsidded.

[null]

9 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

So, like Benice said, the pawn shop and individual gold and inheritance mechanics are fine. I think they're actually really interesting, and I especially like how thieves function in that framework. The static weapon ranks are fine, they're actually preferable to leveling them up slowly in the GBA games. I like rescuing villages and getting rings.

I think the controls are fine, aside from checking enemy ranges which is kind of annoying. We're all playing this illegally though, so the majority of control issues we have are our own fault.

I don't even think the big maps are a problem, especially not with the generous save feature or warp staff.

The problem is that it's kinda boring.

I like pairing up units and planning who gets and passes down what and all, but the moment to moment gameplay, the core tactical Fire Emblem elements, are dull. I think the generous save feature can actually harm it in this regard, because the game starts to feel really easy. The large maps aren't a problem except for how every enemy challenge seems to be a homogeneous 2x6 block of this that or the other, so you get in range of one formation and taking them all out in one turn can present some actual challenge, as if you were playing a tactical game. However, it's a big of a slough getting from fight to fight, and the homogeneity of enemy formations means that you can't really pick who gets exposed to what, since they mostly present the same threat.

When one of your pairings goes awry or someone marries someone you didn't intend, that's when things can get obscenely boring, because that's when you have to repeat much larger chunks of the map except now you have glued two of your units together instead of merely handcuffed them.

So yeah. It's a really interesting game and I like it's unique mechanics, but I wish the actual maps were as fun as planning the arena. I'd love to see the concepts revisited properly.

***

Also supercanto is an indirect buff to infantry, since the horses can hit an enemy and then clear space for the infantry to come in and finish off the stragglers. If mounted units are getting to the enemy first enemy, but they're also occupying all the tiles that you can attack them from, where are the infantry supposed to go?

I completely agree, especially with the bolded statements. I really like some parts of FE4, but others bore me to the point that I fell asleep while playing one time.

I do believe that there's enough good aspects that a remake can fix the not so good parts and have a great game come from it though.

[samthedigital]

On 7/7/2020 at 12:44 AM, AnonymousSpeed said:

I don't even think the big maps are a problem, especially not with the generous save feature or warp staff.

This is the one thing I don't agree with from your post. Big maps aren't a problem in a vacuum to be sure, but the size of the maps in FE4 do exacerbate other flaws that the game already has.

Edited July 10, 2020 by samthedigital

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 7/7/2020 at 3:05 AM, Jotari said:

And also weapon weights are horrendously lobsidded.

That's not really a problem with how doubling works in FE4.

[Alastor15243]

5 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

That's not really a problem with how doubling works in FE4.

How? Keep in mind that this can also amount to a difference as massive as 20 evasion even if you can't double either way.

[OdysseyNeptune]

1. Shadow Dragon is a great FE game
2. New Mystery of the Emblem is quite possibly the best Fire Emblem game.
3. Gaiden is excellent.
4. I like Kris as both a character and a unit.

5. All of the content New Mystery added is awesome.
6. Even before promoting, Roy is still a surprisingly potent unit.
7. Draug is one of the best units in the franchise, even in his Shadow Dragon incarnation (although he's stronger in New Mystery)
8. Armor Knights are among the best classes.
9. Sacred Stones' plot at first is literally a copy of the Archanea plot (kingdom gets destroyed by it's ally (which has a VERY similar name. I mean, Gra and Grado are basically the same name), there's 5 special orbs (Sacred Stones and the Lightsphere, Darksphere, Geosphere, Lifesphere and Starsphere), and the game itself isn't very good gameplay-wise. I would definitely NOT recommend it for a newcomer; I would rather recommend FE7, or FE11 or FE12.
10. Wolt is not a bad unit. I completed FE6 (and this is before Mangs' run in which he used Wolt), and Wolt was amongst my most potent units. He's also surprisingly good at arena abusing.
11. Speaking of Archers, I consider them to be a very good class. They may have no enemy phase, but they're not gonna die if you use them properly. Just put them behind an Armor Knight. They are especially good in Gaiden.
12. The replacement units aren't really bad in FE11. Sure, they may pale in comparison to your other units, but my promoted generics were able to do some decent chip damage in Hard 5.
13. I prefer Avatars without a unique class (like Kris) over Avatars with a unique class.
14. I only like the world map if it's well implemented.
15. Shadow Dragon's art isn't that bad.