What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, Maof06 said:

I will take advantage of what everyone said on the thread and say my own unpopular opinion: Chrom is one of the best lords in the franchise, and one of the best written as well.

Between Grangrel's destructive nihilism and Emmeryn's rigid pacifism, Chrom" arc is about fighting for the right reason while leaving behind your negative feelings (not unlike Dimitri), not letting yourself be treated like a doormat. Emmeryn is also wrong because there are situations where there is no choice but to fight, and her lack of reaction has cost her life. Quoting Androide 16's speech in one of the best moments of the anime: “It is no sin to fight for what is right. There are opponents with which you cannot talk things out ”. Chrom emerges from this situation as a more level-headed person, and his new ideology is opposed to Wallhart's ideology in the next arc.

Now, one of the reasons why I think Chrom stands out among the various lords who came before him is the way he decides his priorities. Marth says his duty as a prince is greater than his personal relationships. Chrom is his antithesis, in the sense that he places those closest to him above his duties as a monarch. To put it more clearly, he is a person before he is a king. His more emotional reactions bring him closer to the viewer, and make him easier to sympathize with in my opinion. Awakening in general does a good deconstruction of the Marth archetype with its protagonists.

Finally, I would also like to compare his journey and his actions with Sigurd, who is also a deconstruction of the archetype and one of the best Lords that this franchise has given us. They are both prone to emotional decisions based on their conceptions of right and wrong, the two don't think much of the long-term consequences, they decide to marry a woman they've known for a short time (okay, I'm being a little biased here, but this is because I believe that Inigo makes the most sense being Chrom's son and Lucina's brother) and his failures lead him to be eventually killed (it is literally necessary to travel back in time to save Chrom). I believe Sigurd is a superior character, though, as he remains dead in his story.

I don't know if that opinion is unpopular or not, but I believe that Marth is really mild and basically every Lord who came after is a better character than he is. It is not his fault, however, it is the limitations of the games of his time, although the remakes have not changed him much.

While I agree with most of what’s said here can I just say how much I say I absolutely despise the word “deconstruction”. It’s been thrown around far too much to the point where it has no meaning anymore.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

3 hours ago, Samz707 said:

The problem is you have way more of them than you'd realistically need in Echoes and I hear that's a problem in Three Houses too.

I think Divine Pulse should require a consumable item of sorts to recharge. (like if Echoes made you go to a shrine and each donation to Mila only restored a single charge for instance.)

Hot context: I actually ran out of Turnwheels yesterday, when trying to make it thru Thabes Labyrinth. They were never redundant ones, either - I only did it when someone died. I barely survived a 9th-floor skirmish (because random Fire Dragons, and 6-move Devil Axe Brigands, are apparently totally legal and totally cool), and turned tail afterward. Are most places like Thabes, with a ton of scary enemies and no way to restore your Turnwheel? No. But there is a context in which running out is a legitimate threat.

So the question becomes - fewer pulses overall? Or, change the amount of pulses contextually (i.e. dungeon vs. chapter, early- vs. lategame)? Or, retain a high cap of pulses, but require the player to do something outside of battle (i.e. feeding Mila, or Resting in 3H) to restore them? Or, unlimited pulses, but some other penalty for using them (lower ranking, missing out on an achievement?).

[Venger_06]

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

While I agree with most of what’s said here can I just say how much I say I absolutely despise the word “deconstruction”. It’s been thrown around far too much to the point where it has no meaning anymore.

Sorry. It's just that I have difficulties to express myself sometimes, so I use more familiar words. Don't mind it too much.

[Sooks]

I never felt like I had more than I would need in Echoes. Probably because I was too busy sleeping to pay attention, but still.

[Heir of Dragons and Beasts]

23 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Other things like Sarah J Maas' Throne of Glass series

This series and its characters suck and are bland and boring

[Heir of Dragons and Beasts]

Fe6 Merlinus should be replaced with Anna

[Sooks]

51 minutes ago, OutcastsofRelix said:

Fe6 Merlinus should be replaced with Anna

That just seems like a pointless change.

[Axie]

what is the popular opinion about the convoy anyway? i am fine with infinite access to the convoy via lord, to be honest.

merlinus is a shit character and i want him retconned out of elibe regardless though.

[Samz707]

Mid-player turn enemy spawns are just as bad as ambush spawns, you spend a turn having healers heal and then you move one unit with good defense slightly forwards and now there's enemies around you but only 1-3 units able to actually attack them, at which point it might as well be an ambush spawn for how little I can do about it.

[joevar]

Ally reinforcement should be abolished just like ambush spawn. its annoying when allies appear in middle of map but weaker than my trained unit, or even the start of the map then became the primary cause to reduce my initial deployment units because we have those "new units" joining in. i want to at least use the exact amount of units like the previous map

also its not fair for the enemy too to have ambush right? 😉

cant remember tho  if this is exclusive to older FE with many late join-er

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by joevar

[Murozaki]

Oh yeah, can't believe i forgot to say this before. But i actually really like FE's selection of non-human final bosses as villains, with the exception of the generic FE7 dragon, Fomortiis and Anankos (And even Anankos has a decent backstory i'll admit even if his actual role as a villain is bleh), all of them offer some good conflict and are generally driven by pretty unique motivations that allows them to be set apart from each other. People rag on them as if they only exist to up the stakes and make the endings more climatic and that they take away from human conflict but i'd say that most of the time they fit pretty well into the story they're in and don't take away any depth from the story nor feel out of place.

[Ottservia]

Personally, I think world building is overrated. I don’t think world building is an inherently good or bad thing but the lack of it should not be grounds to call a story bad. Sure it’s definitely important but I feel like the amount of world building in a story should be such that makes the story more interesting. We don’t need detailed histories on the different countries or cultures of this world. That stuff should be saved for supplementary material. You only really need so much exposition to understand the story’s conflict and I feel like that’s all the information you really. With the exception of 3H, every game I’ve has done just that. Given enough world building to understand the conflict without bogging everything down with exposition.

[Sooks]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Personally, I think world building is overrated. I don’t think world building is an inherently good or bad thing

You don’t think having the world develop is a good thing? Why?

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Sure it’s definitely important but I feel like the amount of world building in a story should be such that makes the story more interesting.

I can get behind that, that probably isn’t very unpopular.

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

We don’t need detailed histories on the different countries or cultures of this world. That stuff should be saved for supplementary material.

I agree with this too! I can occasionally enjoy a 50 page thesis on the world, but I would rather that be hidden away in a lore book (TM) than force fed to you whether you like it or not.

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

You only really need so much exposition to understand the story’s conflict and I feel like that’s all the information you really. With the exception of 3H, every game I’ve has done just that. Given enough world building to understand the conflict without bogging everything down with exposition.

What about 3H’s conflict causes the lack of world building hurt your understanding?

[Jotari]

15 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Personally, I think world building is overrated. I don’t think world building is an inherently good or bad thing but the lack of it should not be grounds to call a story bad. Sure it’s definitely important but I feel like the amount of world building in a story should be such that makes the story more interesting. We don’t need detailed histories on the different countries or cultures of this world. That stuff should be saved for supplementary material. You only really need so much exposition to understand the story’s conflict and I feel like that’s all the information you really. With the exception of 3H, every game I’ve has done just that. Given enough world building to understand the conflict without bogging everything down with exposition.

I think there's a difference between a lack of world building and actual bad world building. Shadow Dragon for example actively lacked world building. We get no information on the history of these countries are their relationships with each other, it's just Altea has this legendary hero called Anri with a magic sword and this one country is full of dragons. The Fire Emblem is literally just a thing with less importance to the plot than Gradivus. Oh and there's this thing called the Curse of Aartemis, but too bad if you want to know anything about what that actually entails. All the stuff with Adrah and Iote and Naga is introduce in Mystery of the Emblem. I'm not sure Naga is even mentioned in Shadow Dragon. The Naga clan is in reference to Tiki as the last of the Naga, but Naga as a character and the big good is left unreferenced as far as I can recall.

But anyway my point is that the first game in the series and it's remake is quite scarce on details about the world itself. Yet poor world building it's not usually a criticism levied at it. Missed opportunities for not including the Mystery lore in Shadow Dragon is something folks like myself lament because it would have been nice for the overall continuity (much like how Hardin doesn't need to be a major character in Shadow Dragon's story, but it would have been if he were for the meaning it would give to the continuity as a whole).

Now bad world building on the other hand is when they half ass it. A complaint generally levied at both Sacred Stones and Awakening. Awakening's sin are obvious in that it directly contradicts established canon in it's continuity. That's not good world building. That's lazy writing that's ignorant to the larger story you're meant to be telling. If those things are deemed as not important than it shouldn't be set in the same continuity to begin with (course we know the real reason it even is is down to a marketing ploy). Some of the best examples of bad world building are in The Sacred Stones though where they tell us there's these previous heroes that defeated the demon king, name two of them and then just never bother to expand on anything more. We're left with elements of the plot and world that should be important factors in the story that are left basically ignored. It's just "Have these legendary weapons" "Why are they legendary?" "Ah there were some heroes in the past that defeated the demon king and established this world" "Okay, who are they?" "Never mind that's not important. Have these weapons."

Having a story set in a small village that is focused on that small village doesn't mean we need to know more about the overlying countries and politics of the world. That would be a lack of world building (though one could still argue we could have world building in how the daily lives of the people live and that would be pretty relevant for creating the tone of the story). A story set in side the capital dealing with the foreign relationship of a kingdom without detailing to use anything of the history or set up of the nations involved is pretty bad world building as it's giving the plot just enough rope to hang itself by making it obvious the story has no idea how or why it's actually functioning.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Jotari

[Ottservia]

4 minutes ago, Sooks said:

You don’t think having the world develop is a good thing? Why?

Because sometimes it’s simply unnecessary or in extreme cases can actually be outright detrimental to the story. See J.K. Rowling for more on that.

 

5 minutes ago, Sooks said:

What about 3H’s conflict causes the lack of world building hurt your understanding?

Oh boy could I write an essay on all my problems with 3H’s world building but it really boils down to two things. 

1. Most of the world building is completely arbitrary and and doesn’t add anything to the story be it plot wise or thematically.

2. The world building and lore we actually do need to understand the story is completely absent. Like one of Claude’s whole conflicts is wanting to open Foldlan’s throat to ease tensions between Foldlan and Almyra. That’s all fine and good. It’s too bad I don’t give a flying fuck about Almyra. And how could I? I know fuck all about the place or it’s people. We never even even visit Almyra. It’s a place directly tied to motivation of one the main lords yet we barely know or understand a thing about the place. How am I supposed with Claude’s goals if  the game makes no effort to show why I should care. I couldn’t give less of a shit about Almyra. To my knowledge it’s just some mountains to the east or something. And don’t even get me started on how terribly handed the nabeteans and agarthians are like god.

[Jotari]

15 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Because sometimes it’s simply unnecessary or in extreme cases can actually be outright detrimental to the story. See J.K. Rowling for more on that.

I find JK Rowling's world building to be pretty decent. It's the supplementary stuff she comes up afterwards which you said world building should be left too which is pretty atrocious. But the stuff in her books is pretty great. She has no idea how population works and Quidditch is a hilariously flawed game, but it still contributes to making an appropriately whimsical story that lies at the core of what Harry Potter is. The only part of Rowling world building I'd say bogs down the story is how wand transferance suddenly becomes a major part of the plot in the last book with no prior build up.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Jotari

[Ottservia]

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I find JK Rowling's world building to be pretty decent. It's the supplementary stuff she comes up afterwards which you said world building should be left too which is pretty atrocious. But the stuff in her books is pretty great. She has no idea how population works and Quidditch is a hilariously flawed game, but it still contributes to making an appropriately whimsical story that lies at the core of what Harry Potter is.

I was mostly just talking about the supplementary material because otherwise yeah her world building is great.

 

21 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It's just "Have these legendary weapons" "Why are they legendary?" "Ah there were some heroes in the past that defeated the demon king and established this world" "Okay, who are they?" "Never mind that's not important. Have these weapons."

I mean do we really need to know about those heroes and their battle to understand Sacred Stone’s story and what it’s trying to accomplish. I would argue not really. Then again I’ve only played like half of Sacred stones. You get just as much information as is necessary to understand why these things are important and how they relate to the big bad. Anything beyond that is for the most part fluff. Sure it’d be interesting to know that information but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary. Awakening breaking continuity is a bit more egregious but again is that information really all that necessary? I get why it’s frustrating but it’s not strictly necessary to understand the story awakening is trying to tell. Again I feel like that kind of information is best left to supplementary material because putting all that in the game itself would only bog it down with unnecessary exposition.

[Jotari]

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I was mostly just talking about the supplementary material because otherwise yeah her world building is great.

 

I mean do we really need to know about those heroes and their battle to understand Sacred Stone’s story and what it’s trying to accomplish. I would argue not really. Then again I’ve only played like half of Sacred stones. You get just as much information as is necessary to understand why these things are important and how they relate to the big bad. Anything beyond that is for the most part fluff. Sure it’d be interesting to know that information but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary. Awakening breaking continuity is a bit more egregious but again is that information really all that necessary? I get why it’s frustrating but it’s not strictly necessary to understand the story awakening is trying to tell. Again I feel like that kind of information is best left to supplementary material because putting all that in the game itself would only bog it down with unnecessary exposition.

If we don't need to know about them, then they have no reason to be there.

[Sooks]

47 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Because sometimes it’s simply unnecessary or in extreme cases can actually be outright detrimental to the story. See J.K. Rowling for more on that.

But that is supplementary. You can experience the entire stories without it.

...yes I am 100% assuming you’re talking about her tweets.

47 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

2. The world building and lore we actually do need to understand the story is completely absent. Like one of Claude’s whole conflicts is wanting to open Foldlan’s throat to ease tensions between Foldlan and Almyra. That’s all fine and good. It’s too bad I don’t give a flying fuck about Almyra. And how could I? I know fuck all about the place or it’s people. We never even even visit Almyra. It’s a place directly tied to motivation of one the main lords yet we barely know or understand a thing about the place. How am I supposed with Claude’s goals if  the game makes no effort to show why I should care. I couldn’t give less of a shit about Almyra. To my knowledge it’s just some mountains to the east or something.

The land that constantly invades Fodlan’s locket for sport, that looks down on all people from Fodlan as cowards that led to Claude feeling like an outsider his whole life due to his half Fodlan heritage, causing him to go to Fodlan to see how things were over there and eventually causing him to realize that are too many walls between people for him to get along isn’t built enough? You know everything you need to for the story.

47 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

And don’t even get me started on how terribly handed the nabeteans and agarthians are like god.

Agreed.

[Jotari]

If anything I feel a lot of Three Houses lore is under developed and should be featured far more prominently in the story. Like apparently Rhea is suppressing and hoarding technology in Fodlan. Is that meant to be a part of the plot that's going on here? I don't know but it absolutely should be. It would give a pretty tangible reason to fight against Rhea beyond she's an immortal dragon who is pro death penalty. It would provide a concrete goal for the Agarthans and an actual vision for what they want to achieve with Fodlan. But any reference to any technology being suppressed by Rhea is left to some long book buried in the library somewhere. Develop that even a little in the story itself and suddenly you've improved the plot by a hell of a lot and have given more defined stances for several of the factions.

[Ottservia]

9 hours ago, Sooks said:

The land that constantly invades Fodlan’s locket for sport, that looks down on all people from Fodlan as cowards that led to Claude feeling like an outsider his whole life due to his half Fodlan heritage, causing him to go to Fodlan to see how things were over there and eventually causing him to realize that are too many walls between people for him to get along isn’t built enough? You know everything you need to for the story.

And exactly how much of that is relevant to VW’s story? Exactly. Like Almyra might as well not even exist for how little it contributes to the overall plot. I wouldn’t mind it so much if story didn’t pretend that it mattered like if you’re gonna make a location integral to the motivations of one of our main lords you kind of have to develop that location in meaningful and actually show how it is relevant. Cause as it stands, Almyra might as well not exist for how irrelevant is.

 

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

If we don't need to know about them, then they have no reason to be there.

I mean like here’s the thing though. They are important to help establish why the weapon is legendary. And that’s all really they exist for. Who those heroes were, why they were fighting, and all that info is mostly filler and can be ignored simply because it’s not important to the current story being told. Would it nice to know that information? Yeah but it’s not strictly necessary.

 

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

If anything I feel a lot of Three Houses lore is under developed and should be featured far more prominently in the story. Like apparently Rhea is suppressing and hoarding technology in Fodlan. Is that meant to be a part of the plot that's going on here? I don't know but it absolutely should be. It would give a pretty tangible reason to fight against Rhea beyond she's an immortal dragon who is pro death penalty. It would provide a concrete goal for the Agarthans and an actual vision for what they want to achieve with Fodlan. But any reference to any technology being suppressed by Rhea is left to some long book buried in the library somewhere. Develop that even a little in the story itself and suddenly you've improved the plot by a hell of a lot and have given more defined stances for several of the factions.

On this I completely agree. The fact that Rhea lying about Foldlan’s history is a major plot point in both VW and CF but they don’t do anything with it. Like they bring up the question of Foldlan’s history being a lie but the story does absolutely nothing with it. And you can’t argue that it’s irrelevant because it’s the primary reason for why the conflict is happening in the first place. It’s the whole reason Edelgard declared war on the church. Like it wouldn’t bother me so much if they didn’t bring up the question at all. But because they brought it to my attention as like a major plot revelation then I expect that to be delivered on but they just abandon it for like no reason. That’s not good writing 

[Sooks]

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

And exactly how much of that is relevant to VW’s story? Exactly. Like Almyra might as well not even exist for how little it contributes to the overall plot. I wouldn’t mind it so much if story didn’t pretend that it mattered like if you’re gonna make a location integral to the motivations of one of our main lords you kind of have to develop that location in meaningful and actually show how it is relevant. Cause as it stands, Almyra might as well not exist for how irrelevant is.

Its only relevancy is Claude’s motivations, but other than that it doesn’t matter, so I don’t know what the problem is.

[Ottservia]

Just now, Sooks said:

Its only relevancy is Claude’s motivations, but other than that it doesn’t matter, so I don’t know what the problem is.

To sum it up in a single phrase “show don’t tell” 

[Sooks]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

To sum it up in a single phrase “show don’t tell” 

But if it’s irrelevant why does that matter?

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, Sooks said:

But if it’s irrelevant why does that matter?

Because it IS relevant. It’s not like it’s the core motivation for one of three major characters in the story or anything!!! Almyra is core to Claude’s motivation!!!! It kinda HAS to be relevant to the story. The fact that it isn’t relevant is the problem.