What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Sooks]

5 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

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. 

Oh. I see now!

I would agree with that, but I don’t think quite a bit of Verdant Wind was well done tbh.

[Murozaki]

30 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

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. 

I mean, going by your own logic, wouldn't the fact we know enough about it to see how it affects and influences Claude's motivations be enough? It's relevant because it ties to Claude's motivation, and we're told enough about how exactly it ties to it and not more. "It ties to a character's motivation" is not the arbitrary line at which we divide what we absolutely need to see a lot of and what we don't in storytelling.

9 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.

If there's one big issue with 3H's worldbuilding actually, it's stuff like this. Keeping stuff "ambiguous" because the devs don't want anyone to have to consider the worst possibility regarding their own choices and interpretation. The books in the library all contain stuff that if it was true would completely change how one looks at the setting but then Linhardt goes "btw the books might have false info don't just believe what they say without question", which may as well be the devs' way of saying that if you like Edelgard/Rhea then just ignore the books whose information makes her look bad and only pay attention to the books that make Rhea/Edelgard look bad.

In general i feel 3H's biggest writing issue is how it doesn't like the idea of people having to consider the idea that their choice of route might have some negatives to it. Edelgard wants to end the crest-based classism? It's okay, even if you don't play CF the other routes have that end too. Dimitri wants to help the poor and stop all the violence and bloodshed in the continent? It's okay, all the other endings still have Fodlan prosperous and peaceful. Claude wants to open Fodlan's borders? It's fine, the other routes end with Fodlan being happy and perfect so they're fine with foreign lands and their citizens now.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Murozaki

[Etrurian emperor]

Not having any world building is like not having any villains. You can technically do it but the end result will be boring and ultimately more detrimental then if you just did the extra work and crafted an engaging world. 

At the end of the day the most interesting characters are neither inherently good or evil but driven by the circumstances around them. A world that lacks any substance is unlikely to create those circumstances which in turn leads to less interesting characters. Edelgard's plotline wouldn't work if the writing hadn't set up Fodlan as a significantly flawed continent in desperate need in reform. Lehran's fall wouldn't have worked nearly as well if the player hadn't been constantly reminded how fragile Tellius really was and neither Neasalla nor Travant would have been anything but straight up villains if their nations weren't struggling with poverty. 

We can already see a lack of worldbuilding hinder characters with ideologies that might have been interesting. Walhard is passionate about freeing the world from the control of gods but we're never given any indication that he's fighting a problem that actually exist in Valm or Ylisse. And for all talk of replacing the current system to one were strength is important we never get any indication that Ylisse or Valm are like Begnion where strength get dismissed in favor of the correct blood ties. The Shepherds in fact seem to be the very picture of a meritocracy. 

Good worldbuilding just makes for better characters. You can see it in pretty much every mini boss in Tellius who almost all fit in neatly with the culture that their respective countries represent. You can see it in Elibe where most countries are vastly different and so the characters from those countries have a different relation with each other. And you can see it in Fodlan where the flaws within the world drive many of your characters. 

For a story to work you also have to care about what's happening to some extend. But why would I ever care about Renais when its just a name on a map that you barely even visit? Why would I care for Grust when its just an evil nations with knights? Or Macedon when its just an evil nation with wyvrens. 

You can technically go without world building but not having it around will always be a limiting factor. It will limit the characters that exist within that world, it will limit the amount of events that could happen in that world and ultimately it will make it harder to continue the story within that world. 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Etrurian emperor

[Jotari]

1 hour 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.

 

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.

But do the legendary weapons even need a legendary backstory? They could just be random S ranked weapons like in Tellius. But if you're going to give me a legendary background, then actually give me a legendary background. Don't just say there's a legendary background and then just don't actually give it.

 

[Jotari]

12 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Not having any world building is like not having any villains. You can technically do it but the end result will be boring and ultimately more detrimental then if you just did the extra work and crafted an engaging world. 

At the end of the day the most interesting characters are neither inherently good or evil but driven by the circumstances around them. A world that lacks any substance is unlikely to create those circumstances which in turn leads to less interesting characters. Edelgard's plotline wouldn't work if the writing hadn't set up Fodlan as a significantly flawed continent in desperate need in reform. Lehran's fall wouldn't have worked nearly as well if the player hadn't been constantly reminded how fragile Tellius really was and neither Neasalla nor Travant would have been anything but straight up villains if their nations weren't struggling with poverty. 

Good worldbuilding just makes for better characters. You can see it in pretty much every mini boss in Tellius who almost all fit in neatly with the culture that their respective countries represent. You can see it in Elibe where most countries are vastly different and so the characters from those countries have a different relation with each other. And you can see it in Fodlan where the flaws within the world drive many of your characters. 

For a story to work you also have to care about what's happening to some extend. But why would I ever care about Renais when its just a name on a map that you barely even visit? Why would I care for Grust when its just an evil nations with knights? Or Macedon when its just an evil nation with wyvrens. 

You can technically go without world building but not having it around will always be a limiting factor. It will limit the characters that exist within that world, it will limit the amount of events that could happen in that world and ultimately it will make it harder to continue within that world. 

 

I agree with the first half of this statement, not having world building is like not having any villains. However I don't think that necessarily means a story will be boring. A story without a villain can definitely work. It's going to be far, far harder to pull off in a video game which sort of demands some kind of conflict to face for the sake of gameplay, but it is possible.

[Anathaco]

I'd honestly say the worldbuilding of Almyra was handled decently enough. We don't ever see it, true, but we get physical descriptions from Cyril, and the cultural stuff that is necessary to understand Claude's motivation is given to us.

With regards to the "show don't tell" complaint, I'd argue that's irrelevant in this context. To me, Claude's motivation is as much about how minorities are treated in Fodlan as it is about how they're treated in Almyra. His despair comes from seeing the issues from both sides of the coin, so to speak, and the two nations are compared and noted to be almost exact in their prejudice. So even though we don't see that discrimination from the Almyran angle, we see plenty of it from the Fodlan angle, and that's enough to understand why Claude would be so deadset on tearing down walls everywhere. 

To be clear, I would have liked to actually see Almyra. In that sense worldbuilding is like icing on a cake. In VW's case they tried to make their cake without the icing that is a good and proper view into Almyra as a whole. The cake still works without that icing, we got all the necessary information to understand Claude as a character, but you can never have too much icing on a cake.

 

[Jotari]

37 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

I'd honestly say the worldbuilding of Almyra was handled decently enough. We don't ever see it, true, but we get physical descriptions from Cyril, and the cultural stuff that is necessary to understand Claude's motivation is given to us.

With regards to the "show don't tell" complaint, I'd argue that's irrelevant in this context. To me, Claude's motivation is as much about how minorities are treated in Fodlan as it is about how they're treated in Almyra. His despair comes from seeing the issues from both sides of the coin, so to speak, and the two nations are compared and noted to be almost exact in their prejudice. So even though we don't see that discrimination from the Almyran angle, we see plenty of it from the Fodlan angle, and that's enough to understand why Claude would be so deadset on tearing down walls everywhere. 

To be clear, I would have liked to actually see Almyra. In that sense worldbuilding is like icing on a cake. In VW's case they tried to make their cake without the icing that is a good and proper view into Almyra as a whole. The cake still works without that icing, we got all the necessary information to understand Claude as a character, but you can never have too much icing on a cake.

 

Indeed, from Cyril's supports and the design aesthetic of the outfit and stuff we get some pretty great world building for Almyra. Better than we do from Dagda I'd say (I think Petra does say stuff about what people do in Dagda, but it's too generic for me to retain any of it despite me being interested in the place, or wait, is Petra's place Brigid? See I don't even know, I sort of should though). Like always in Three Houses it's the not that the lore or world building is bad, it's that actual application of it in the story. Three Houses is something of a playground of great world building and lore, that the writers who were permitted to play in didn't utilize to its fullest.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Jotari

[Sooks]

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

or wait, is Petra's place Brigid? See I don't even know, I sort of should though).

Yes. But she mentions Dagda somewhat frequently because the neighboring countries formed an alliance against the empire and went to war but lost and so the empire took Petra as basically a willing hostage to make sure that Brigid wouldn’t restore their alliance with Dagda and attack.

Shamir is from Dagda, but I don’t remember her ever helping to develop it.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

Shamir is from Dagda, but I don’t remember her ever helping to develop it.

"Dagda is the land of sexy goth assassin gfs" is my new headcanon, and nothing can change that.

[Mylady]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Indeed, from Cyril's supports and the design aesthetic of the outfit and stuff we get some pretty great world building for Almyra. Better than we do from Dagda I'd say (I think Petra does say stuff about what people do in Dagda, but it's too generic for me to retain any of it despite me being interested in the place, or wait, is Petra's place Brigid? See I don't even know, I sort of should though). Like always in Three Houses it's the not that the lore or world building is bad, it's that actual application of it in the story. Three Houses is something of a playground of great world building and lore, that the writers who were permitted to play in didn't utilize to its fullest.

Fodlan and three houses world in general could have another game set on it even with an unrelated story. The game could be set on Dagda or Brigid because they have interesting concepts but still with a lot of freedom expand the worldbuilding. Almyra could also be the set of a new game since it would be very interesting a place that is not generic  medieval europe, but there's the problem with canonizing the routes, unless it's a prequel. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Mylady

[Shrimpica]

7 minutes ago, Mylady said:

but there's the problem with canonizing the routes, unless it's a prequel. 

Almyra 887 could work with all routes, since

Spoiler

Claude lives in all routes (unless you choose to kill him off in CF)

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Father Shrimpas

[Jotari]

8 hours ago, Mylady said:

Fodlan and three houses world in general could have another game set on it even with an unrelated story. The game could be set on Dagda or Brigid because they have interesting concepts but still with a lot of freedom expand the worldbuilding. Almyra could also be the set of a new game since it would be very interesting a place that is not generic  medieval europe, but there's the problem with canonizing the routes, unless it's a prequel. 

No need to canonize any route. Just leave things vague, like cindered Shadows, that doesn't mention what house Byleth is teaching at all.

[Acacia Sgt]

Unpopular opinion: IS should have the guts to canonize one route if they ever do that.

I just don't like it when games pull this sort of thing. At least if they no longer continue that particular narrative because of the multiple endings.

As such, I commend on Elder Scrolls for coming up with a way that makes seven of Daggerfall's eight endings canon. The Dragonbreak or Warp of the West could be so ridiculous of a plot point... but oh so satisfying for continuity. If you can't let one be canon over the others... go nuts then.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Acacia Sgt

[joevar]

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Unpopular opinion: IS should have the guts to canonize one route if they ever do that

agreed, making the game have multiple route and equally non canon just bring more harm to the (fandom) discussion and also making it harder for sequel to take place.

but the masses who dont participate in any discussion like option(s) i guess

funnily enough theres also Nier Director who take a non canon/one of the weirdest ending of his game and make it as its own universe for another game... but not everyone sane/dare enough to pull that in major IP

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

As such, I commend on Elder Scrolls for coming up with a way that makes seven of Daggerfall's eight endings canon. The Dragonbreak or Warp of the West could be so ridiculous of a plot point... but oh so satisfying for continuity. If you can't let one be canon over the others... go nuts then.

theres also the fact that the sequel happen so far into the future each time that you can ignore most of that

[Use the Falchion]

If Fire Emblem has the chance to adapt a single property into an anime, Three Houses is by far and away the best choice. Three Houses has a great school setting that could fit in its own tournament arc (and subvert it by making it seem like a big deal, only for the character in the spotlight (probably Caspar) to realize that these things happen pretty much every month, so losing isn't a big deal), a sauna episode, a beach episode (the follow-up to Flayn and Seteth's paralogue, ending with Flayn and Seteth saying goodbye to their loved one), and so many more fun hijinks that anime usually love. Episodes based around paralogues are great ways to highlight the characters while also showing some development. Those would be great places to put supports and give us interactions that the supports didn't as well. 

I would also give more time dedicated to other, minor characters, such as that "son of a knight," his romantic interest in that "young ingénue," Poe from Cipher, and quite possibly that dummied out/unused character who held the minor crest of Cichol (I think the speculation at the time was that she would be an illegitimate half-sibling of Ferdinand, and I think that storyline would be really cool to explore). This provides new content and gives fans of the games new content!

And as soon as fans who haven't played the game think this show is all about "fantasy high school," Chapter 11 happens and the story flips completely, leading to an utterly heartbreaking Season 2 finale. And then we pick up five years later, and everything has changed...

Which route and which Byleth would be chosen, you might wonder. Well, in my mind, we'd have both versions of Byleth present, with Bylad (named Byleth in my mind) teaching the Golden Deer and Bylass (aka Belle (after the demon Belial)) teaching the Blue Lions. 

The main chapter fights would be split between these two houses as well (and maybe the Black Eagles, if only to provide the impetus for some of the students wanting to change houses): 

The Golden Deer would get - Chapter 2 (Zanado), Chapter 4 (Holy Masuleum (with B.E.)), and Chapter 6 (Flayn Rescue).

The Blue Lions would get - Chapter 3 (Lonato), Chapter 5 (Miklain), and Chapter 8 (Remire Village).

Both would share Chapters 9-12 (Chapel Ruins, Sealed Forest, Holy Tomb, and Outer Wall). 

The Battle of the Eagle and Lion and the mock battle would be split between all three Houses. 

Lastly, I would think about moving the Ashen Wolves storyline to after Chapter 10. The way I see it:

Spoiler

Byleth is still mourning the lost of Jeralt, and here comes someone to tell Byleth about their mother. It ends tragically of course, but the professor is able to gain some small amount of closure of both parents. The Ashen Wolves would go their separate ways for now, coming back as main cast members in Part 2 (where they have paralogues anyways). The next episode would see Byleth return to the classroom and official duties. 

Combining the Azure Moon and Golden Deer stories allow us to tell the maximum amount of the story without needing to "reset" or rehash parts of the story. Verdant Wind and Azure Moon are pretty complementary as well, and having two Byleths teaching two classes allows for a majority of the students to live through the show. (I have this idea where Manuela and Hanneman would be joint teachers for the B.E. class, and while their bickering would be funny to see in-world, it'd be deconstructed as their students ask to join other classes because they simply aren't learning anything. After the timeskip, Hanneman and Manuela would reflect on this, noting how it was nothing but sheer luck that most of their students from their joint class lived, not their teaching. This in turn would motivate them in separate ways.) 

Crimson Flower would be saved for an utterly tragic yet tight and awesomely animated movie/OVA focused on Edelgard's story and reasoning, along with her romance with a F!Byleth in this route.*

 

So yeah...Three Houses anime...

 

10 hours ago, Father Shrimpas said:

Almyra 887 could work with all routes, since

  Reveal hidden contents

Claude lives in all routes (unless you choose to kill him off in CF)

 

This is why I think a sequel to Three Houses exploring some of the other countries outside of Fodlan would actually work really well. We don't really see Morfis or Almyra, and I could totally see a scenario where the MC and their allies go to Almyra for help, and 

Spoiler

The new king states that he'd love to get more, but his country is still working on their relationship with their more westerly allies. 

The MC could then mention that they though Almyra was the farthest thing to the West (if they're from even farther east), where the king would reply that there's so much more to the west than what the MC knows. The King would offer to introduce the MC to an old classmate of his, but now isn't the time. 

Claude sends a child of his (I'm thinking a daughter) to help out the MC, who he claims looks "almost exactly like him, much to his/her mother's dismay," who becomes a Wyvern Rider, following in Almyran (and Fire Emblem) tradition. 

With all of that, things are alluded to that can be explored, no canon route is set in stone, and it expands the world. Although, I think that if this came out on the Switch, there may be a save-bonus for that Wyvern Rider, depending on what the player's last VW run pairings were. 

[Harvey]

I hate rating units. Simply because it makes weak units exist for no reason and they end up with good character. I honestly thought that we'd be done with this rating stuff once Three Houses showed up...but I guess unit balancing is never going to work out because of the existence of higher difficulties.

 

[GlitchWarrior]

9 hours ago, Harvey said:

I hate rating units. Simply because it makes weak units exist for no reason and they end up with good character. I honestly thought that we'd be done with this rating stuff once Three Houses showed up...but I guess unit balancing is never going to work out because of the existence of higher difficulties.

I wouldn't even see this as much of an issue if higher difficulties didn't mean the game becomes a nightmare without a dedicated squad. But they do, it does, and therefore units form a terrifying hierarchy. I hate rating units against each other, too. Sure, comparing Marcus to Wolt is not going to be a contest: one is your Jagen and the other is an archer. But how about units in the same class being wildly better than others? On the note of FE6, Raigh and Sophia instantly jump to mind for example, as do Bors and Gwendolyn (although that one is downplayed, they both suck, Bors just has eight chapters over Gwendolyn to build his level). Or how about in the original game? There is such a jump between the stats of Hardin and Vyland when they join on CH5 that one would reasonably NOT assume they join together. Let's also not forget how merely being in a better class can make you a better unit than someone else: The best armored knight will almost always be considered worse than the worst cavalier.

The difference here is the difficulty. In FE1, you can beat the game with pretty much anyone with little hassle. In FE6, though, you need some of the super-powerful units, like Marcus, Melady, Rutger and such, to make it through chunks of the game without tearing your hair out in frustration. I'm fine with units having wildly different power levels, but it hurts when it happens in a game where it matters a lot.

Recent games, I find, have made it WORSE, because you have to build your team from scratch and can't just substitute a new one on the fly because that new unit won't stand a chance. This is actually one of my biggest gripes with modern FE: It tries to scale the game to a full, raised-since-Chapter-1 army, instead of considering that you might have just lost someone. They're encouraging resets over their own gameplay style, and the units it gives you all join at relatively low levels early on. So it becomes a matter of picking out the units worth more long-term, since it's not like you'll lose anything if those units die: that's what resets and Divine Pulse are for.

I'm not the only one who wants to see a Fire Emblem game without rewind in the future, am I?

[Harvey]

1 hour ago, GlitchWarrior said:

I wouldn't even see this as much of an issue if higher difficulties didn't mean the game becomes a nightmare without a dedicated squad. But they do, it does, and therefore units form a terrifying hierarchy. I hate rating units against each other, too. Sure, comparing Marcus to Wolt is not going to be a contest: one is your Jagen and the other is an archer. But how about units in the same class being wildly better than others? On the note of FE6, Raigh and Sophia instantly jump to mind for example, as do Bors and Gwendolyn (although that one is downplayed, they both suck, Bors just has eight chapters over Gwendolyn to build his level). Or how about in the original game? There is such a jump between the stats of Hardin and Vyland when they join on CH5 that one would reasonably NOT assume they join together. Let's also not forget how merely being in a better class can make you a better unit than someone else: The best armored knight will almost always be considered worse than the worst cavalier.

The difference here is the difficulty. In FE1, you can beat the game with pretty much anyone with little hassle. In FE6, though, you need some of the super-powerful units, like Marcus, Melady, Rutger and such, to make it through chunks of the game without tearing your hair out in frustration. I'm fine with units having wildly different power levels, but it hurts when it happens in a game where it matters a lot.

Recent games, I find, have made it WORSE, because you have to build your team from scratch and can't just substitute a new one on the fly because that new unit won't stand a chance. This is actually one of my biggest gripes with modern FE: It tries to scale the game to a full, raised-since-Chapter-1 army, instead of considering that you might have just lost someone. They're encouraging resets over their own gameplay style, and the units it gives you all join at relatively low levels early on. So it becomes a matter of picking out the units worth more long-term, since it's not like you'll lose anything if those units die: that's what resets and Divine Pulse are for.

I'm not the only one who wants to see a Fire Emblem game without rewind in the future, am I?

 

That's just what I don't get though. I mean sure...I understand why the fandom rates units and the ratings exist because it helps those who want to pick long term units to play the game. I get that. You'd need super powerful units to have some kind of progress. Ok I do.

But modern FE games like 3H are designed so that you can never have issues with unit balancing and honestly, I cannot pick a finger of any bad units in 3H because of how the game is designed with them being usable throughout. It really hurts to see my girl  Marianne rated lower than Mercedes and the same for Rapheal and Caspar because Maddening suddenly makes them both suck instead of the difficulty. 

I just hate the idea of rating units generally. It just means that because you're gonna come across weaker units that are a waste of time to train, you're going to choose the ones who are powerful enough for you to make progress...and it sucks really. And those who argue about units being good are not considered tacticians or are just being rather delusional.

Like I swear, the things that gamefaqs users even say like 3H units have to have offensive power else they are thrash. Just recently there's a poll of Hilda vs Ingrid. Like seriously? Who cares? Both are good but no..Ingird sucks earlygame because of her low str even though she's in a game where you can grind a bit both to master classes and levelling. And even though Hilda has a bane in authority, that isn't that big of a deal since authority C rank is simple to get? And it went on that there are so many fliers that can outpace Ingrid very easily...like what?

Same for Felix vs Petra...like how does it even matter if one is better than the other if they are both useful in their ways?

 

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Harvey

[Use the Falchion]

Apparently this and the headcanon post are where I'm making my home on this forum...

I actually like the rumors and "leaks" for future Fire Emblem games. I rarely believe them, especially at this stage, but I find them to be fun to entertain and imagine. Like Gothic Emblem - that was a fun rumor! I didn't think it would happen (although one could easily pick apart pieces of it and match it to what we did get in Three Houses), but it was fun to entertain. Pirate Emblem was far less fun and far less believable, but still amusing to a degree. 

[Samz707]

While everyone has discussed PVP, I'd actually like to see a co-operative (either Hotseat/online) FE gameplay mode, where each player controls a significantly sized group of at least 8 units and have to co-ordinate together to deal with tough scenarios.

Basically imagine one of those tough levels in FE where your army is split into 2 or more groups at the start but you've actually got other players playing those groups , you still need to coordinate for maximum effectiveness but it'd be more manageable with your allies being the ones to worry about the specifics of their own groups.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Samz707

[joevar]

36 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

While everyone has discussed PVP, I'd actually like to see a co-operative (either Hotseat/online) FE gameplay mode, where each player controls a significantly sized group of at least 8 units and have to co-ordinate together to deal with tough scenarios.

Basically imagine one of those tough levels in FE where your army is split into 2 or more groups at the start but you've actually got other players playing those groups , you still need to coordinate for maximum effectiveness but it'd be more manageable with your allies being the ones to worry about the specifics of their own groups.

if its two group with different starting point, maybe (but still same side). but having two commander in one place can be chaotic.

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Apparently this and the headcanon post are where I'm making my home on this forum...

I actually like the rumors and "leaks" for future Fire Emblem games. I rarely believe them, especially at this stage, but I find them to be fun to entertain and imagine. Like Gothic Emblem - that was a fun rumor! I didn't think it would happen (although one could easily pick apart pieces of it and match it to what we did get in Three Houses), but it was fun to entertain. Pirate Emblem was far less fun and far less believable, but still amusing to a degree. 

I legitimately want Pirate Emblem. It would be a great change if pace for the series.

[Alastor15243]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I legitimately want Pirate Emblem. It would be a great change if pace for the series.

Shanty Pete! SHANTY PETE!

[Shrimpica]

So this is more a story thing...

Dragon degradation is one of the stupidest things to happen to this franchise. All it leads to is people not being responsible for their actions, or something. 

It would've been much better to focus on living long, loss, betrayal, etc, instead of ''We fall to our instincs and become angryyyyyyy reeeeeeee''.

It's why i consider Rhea to be the only well done ''enemy'' Dragon in the franchise.

5 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Apparently this and the headcanon post are where I'm making my home on this forum...

I actually like the rumors and "leaks" for future Fire Emblem games. I rarely believe them, especially at this stage, but I find them to be fun to entertain and imagine. Like Gothic Emblem - that was a fun rumor! I didn't think it would happen (although one could easily pick apart pieces of it and match it to what we did get in Three Houses), but it was fun to entertain. Pirate Emblem was far less fun and far less believable, but still amusing to a degree. 

Yeah!

And honestly discussing rumors can be pretty fun tbh.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Father Shrimpas

[Sooks]

15 minutes ago, Father Shrimpas said:

So this is more a story thing...

Dragon degradation is one of the stupidest things to happen to this franchise. All it leads to is people not being responsible for their actions, or something. 

It would've been much better to focus on living long, loss, betrayal, etc, instead of ''We fall to our instincs and become angryyyyyyy reeeeeeee''.

What is dragon degradation? And when was that last part ever in modern fe?

15 minutes ago, Father Shrimpas said:

It's why i consider Rhea to be the only well done ''enemy'' Dragon in the franchise.

So you’re Edelgard scum as well? 😛