What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[vanguard333]

10 hours ago, Ottservia said:

You know it’s funny that you say this because I feel the exact opposite as in Fates has more focus than 3 houses. Honestly 3H both in gameplay and especially story is a goddamn mess. At least Fates knew what it wanted to be from the outset and stayed true to its themes and ideas. Fates at the very least is structurally consistent as far as story is concerned and handles it’s route split and even world building I would argue a lot better. 3H feels like it’s trying to tell 3 different stories at once that both try to interconnect and relate with one another yet want nothing want nothing to do with each other at the same time. It feels like there’s a lot happening but at the end of each route it feels like nothing was accomplished at all. 3H’s story structure honest to god baffles me because it does feel like 3 separate stories that hardly have anything to do with each other. I mean the fact that Nemisis kind of just comes out of no where at the end of VW with no thematic relevance, build up, or pay off speaks volumes as to just how much of a mess this story is. And don’t even get me started at the irrelevant mess that is Dimitri’s character. Thematically 3H has a lot of interesting ideas going for but in execution it just ends up being a clusterfuck kinda like gen 7 OU.

I did say that some might end up feeling that way; I just simply doubted that it would be a majority. I mean, I know that people tend to look back on stuff with rose-tinted glasses, but are we seriously going to do that for Fire Emblem Fates?

Anyway, "At least Fates knew what it wanted to be from the outset and stayed true to its themes and ideas" the only way that statement holds is if theme and idea you're referring to is that of, "Throw it all in! Whatever you can think of, just throw it in regardless of if it makes sense!" Almost everything in Fates is tacked on and thrown in as if they just threw in everything they could brainstorm in the hopes that some of it would resonate with players (I'd list some examples, but I fear that the list would never end), and a lot of this stuff completely goes against any themes or ideas that the story does try to establish. For just one example, "Blood family vs adopted family" is thrown out the window because they had to make it that you could s-support the royals because they felt the game had to appease those that want to s-support every character on account of wanting the game to appease everyone, so the Hoshidan siblings had to be written as not actually being blood-siblings to Corrin.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Pokémon model of having to buy every route separately (unless, like me, you bought the expensive special edition that could only be pre-ordered) is superior to having all the routes in the one game? Or if you're saying the route split is better because it happens at chapter 5 instead of chapter 1 and thus theoretically had more time to get to know each side, well again; you bought one of the versions first, so you already made your choice when you bought it and knew nothing about the characters in each faction. So Three Houses is still the better route split.

As for worldbuilding, the worldbuilding in Fates was practically nonexistent, and what little scraps of worldbuilding were there fell apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny or the moment a single question about it was asked. There's practically nothing to the world of Fates, to the point where they didn't even name the continent. By contrast, a lot can be said about Fodlan. The wordbuilding isn't perfect, but it's actually there, and at least a significant amount of it is utilized by the plot.

You levy that criticism of each route at Three Houses, but that same criticism can by-and-large be made towards Fates as well.

I can't agree or disagree about Nemesis as I'm not that far into Verdant Wind yet. Nor can I really say anything about your remarks about Dimitri as I haven't played Azure Moon yet.

Again, that same criticism can be levied at Fates. Half the the time that I bring up Fates nowadays, it's in the context of,  "this particular idea here had potential; shame that the game was a mess in execution that failed to actually use this neat idea".

 

10 hours ago, Florete said:

Agreed with @Ottservia above on this. Three Houses is a complete mess. Fates has an awful story, but everything else about it is very solid, and even its story is arguably more structurally consistent than TH despite being horribly written.

You and I seem to have pretty differing opinions on things. To me, BotW is the best Zelda game and the complete opposite of TH; while TH tries a lot and gets very little of it right, BotW tries a lot and gets most of it right.

I'm sorry; what?! Fates is bad across the board: story, characters, worldbuilding, combat, level design, world design, class balancing, etc. The gameplay is a nightmare of tacked-on gimmicks.

For instance, with map/level design, Conquest and Revelation's maps may as well be called, "tedious gimmick: the game". What's the worst thing you can accurately say about Three Houses' map/level design? That they're a bit bland and overly reused? I'd take any day over games whose maps are filled with gimmicks that only serve to add tedium rather than any strategic value. And, with Three Houses, at least the combat mechanics actually fit together nicely, unlike Fates' tacked-on mechanics that reek of wanting to appease Awakening fans and older-game fans at the same time. The monastery is also miles better than MyCastle. Etc.

And at least the characters in Three Houses are actually characters, rather than a collection of one-note quirks, glorified plot devices, and a mary sue at the center of it all. Fates somehow failed to make an interesting protagonist out of a human/dragon hybrid that was (supposedly) born to one royal family, raised by another, and has to watch as those kingdoms go to war with each other. That's like having all the ingredients, proportions, and recipe books for a delicious meal only to end up with something not even mice would eat.

I'd say that both Three Houses and in the "they try a lot and get a large amount of it right" camp. They're both games that can, gameplay-wise, be made almost irrelevant by a polished sequel. 

 

3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Oh TH is probably destined to age poorly. You having to replay the same set of stages in part 1 every time already makes it a bit hard to go back to, and most part 2 stages sharing the same stages in the exact same order isn't helping. 

That said I think that while undesirable its also not that bad for games to age poorly. Great games can age poorly. For instance I suspect Breath of the Wild is not going to age well once Nintendo starts ironing out its flaws in the next titles.

On the other hand I doubt Fates is going to get reevaluated by people. People already acknowledge the gameplay is really good so no opinions need to be changed there, and what people hate from a story perspective is often so overly wacky, culturally bizarre or ''objectively'' terrible that I don't think many people will be changing their minds on it. Being able to romance Percy and Elise will never stop being considered weird at best, Team Garon will never be seen as good villains and Corrin will likely remain controversial. 

 

For me its mostly that Echoes has a script, and it has a cast of playable characters while with Shadow Dragon that's only barely so at the best of times. Mae and Boey are actual characters in a way Cain and Abel are not, Jedah and Berkut are actual villains in ways that Medeus and Gharnef are not. When comparing Gaiden and Echoes I see a cast full of dreadfully dull blank slates that were turned into a very strong cast of characters. When I compare Shadow Dragon with its NES counterpart I see a bunch of blank slates who with a few exceptions have largely remained those same blank slates. 

I disagree about Fates' gameplay, but I agree with your overall point. Three Houses will likely age poorly after getting a sequel that uses its engine and mechanics, but that doesn't make it bad, and Fates is not going to get re-evaluated; at least, not in any significant way.

 

I suppose. For me though, if I may borrow that script comparison, Shadows of Valentia only has half a script that appears and disappears at random points, and the different parts fight each other. For all of Shadow Dragon's lack of expansion on anything, at least what was there is all in agreement.

I agree about Mae and Boey. I disagree on Jedah and Berkut. Berkut never amounted to anything more than filler; you could remove him entirely and lose absolutely nothing except for a good voice actor. Jedah is one of the characters I'd point to as an example of one of the ways that the game fights itself: it's as if there was one team of writers that wanted to retain his original "personality" as much as possible, and another that wanted to overhaul him into a somewhat well-intentioned (if self-centered) extremist who genuinely believes that Valentia cannot survive without Duma, and the two teams just could not agree with each other or find common ground. One minute, he's cackling about creating a world of darkness under Duma's shadow, and the next he's practically pleading with the protagonists that Valentia can't survive without Duma, and these moments strongly clash with each other.

 

48 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

This comes across like somebody from the 1930s asking "what's the point of a movie being a 'talkie' if the story is worse than the good old silent films?" A game that's near-fully voice acted, like SoV, is a very different experience than something that's text-based. For my part, I find it heightens the immersion (I don't have to imagine what characters sound like, as I would when reading a book), and allows for another dimension of expression beyond the text itself. That said, some people prefer games without voice acting, and that's fine too. And obviously, a voice-acted game can have a worse plot or dialogue than an unvoiced one. Shadow Dragon, as scant as it is, still offers some of the best dialogue in the series - lines like Mannu's "Interlopers! Barbarous filth!", or some random villager's "Munchin' Manaketes! The Altean Army", stick with me to this day.

My general point is, voice acting adds something, in terms of presentation, that's on a totally different axis from the quality of the script and story itself. To some players, such as myself, that's a big deal in its own right.

Okay; if that's what it sounds like, that's definitely not what I meant. I guess I was more trying to say that voice acting doesn't inherently make a remake better than a remake that didn't add voice acting.

Also, films and video games are different mediums with different strengths and weaknesses. I agree about voice acting being on a different axis from the script, but I disagree that it inherently adds to the presentation of a video game. Don't get me wrong; done well and in the correct games that would benefit from it, it can potentially add a lot. But it can also do nothing or even detract from the experience overall. SoV is definitely an example of voice acting adding a bit to the game, but I don't think it's nearly enough to make up for its far greater shortcomings as a remake than Shadow Dragon.

[Ottservia]

18 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Anyway, "At least Fates knew what it wanted to be from the outset and stayed true to its themes and ideas" the only way that statement holds is if theme and idea you're referring to is that of, "Throw it all in! Whatever you can think of, just throw it in regardless of if it makes sense!" Almost everything in Fates is tacked on and thrown in as if they just threw in everything they could brainstorm in the hopes that some of it would resonate with players (I'd list some examples, but I fear that the list would never end), and a lot of this stuff completely goes against any themes or ideas that the story does try to establish. For just one example, "Blood family vs adopted family" is thrown out the window because they had to make it that you could s-support the royals because they felt the game had to appease those that want to s-support every character on account of wanting the game to appease everyone, so the Hoshidan siblings had to be written as not actually being blood-siblings to Corrin.

Not to be blunt but if you think that was the primary theme of fates then you need to replay fates because that isn’t the primary theme. Well okay it is but not in the way you think it is. This is honestly what I despise about Fates “criticism” a lot of it so dismissive of the actual ideas that Fates tries to explore and just brushes it all off as an inconsistent mess when it is far from inconsistent. 
 

Yes, a primary theme of Fates is the idea of blood vs bond family but the conclusion the narrative reaches is that it doesn’t matter whether or not your family is related to you by blood or bond and that you should trust your family regardless of how you are related to them. The blood vs bond theme extends further than the just Corrin’s relationship with the royals. You’ll notice how in Birthright a lot of the retainers serve their liege out of some blood obligation because their whole family line has been duty bound to serve the Hoshidian royal family. We see this in characters like Saizo, Kaze, Oboro, and Hana. The only exception I’m aware of being Azama. Though I can’t really speak for the other retainers cause I haven’t read enough of their supports. Even so, it’s still an idea that’s emphasized. By contrast in Nohr, you have a bit of a found family theme where every retainer(with the exception of Effie and Arthur) all lost their original families be it due to war, neglect, assassination, murder, abandonment, etc. and have sworn to follow their lieges out of loyalty and trust rather than blood obligation. Even so you can argue that Corrin not being blood related to the Hoshidian royals actually adds to the whole theme of blood not mattering because even after learning the truth they still love and trust each other regardless of that fact because of the bond they built together. You only learn that information in the S-support. There’s a lot more I could get into but then we’d be here all day so I’m just gonna leave it there

[vanguard333]

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Not to be blunt but if you think that was the primary theme of fates then you need to replay fates because that isn’t the primary theme. Well okay it is but not in the way you think it is. This is honestly what I despise about Fates “criticism” a lot of it so dismissive of the actual ideas that Fates tries to explore and just brushes it all off as an inconsistent mess when it is far from inconsistent. 

I find it a bit odd that you made that response when, not only did I never say anything along the lines of "primary theme", but you quoted and highlighted the part where I prefaced, "For just one example". I placed no particular emphasis on it as an example, and I picked it as an example because I figured it was the one I could most-concisely reference and criticize before moving on to the next point.

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

I find it a bit odd that you made that response when, not only did I never say anything along the lines of "primary theme", but you quoted and highlighted the part where I prefaced, "For just one example". I placed no particular emphasis on it as an example, and I picked it as an example because I figured it was the one I could most-concisely reference and criticize before moving on to the next point.

Well it’s a terrible example honestly. It’s almost as bad as saying Naruto contradicted its themes of hard work because that’s such a surface level reading of Fates’s narrative. Also your general dismissive tone of Fates is making me angry to be frank. I just despise it when people blatantly disrespect creators and unfairly dismiss their work as meaningless and shallow without putting in the effort to actually understand the story in question. It’s one thing to not like a story. It’s another thing entirely to completely disrespect it as well as the people who created it and like it by saying “there is no deeper meaning”.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

52 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

For instance, with map/level design, Conquest and Revelation's maps may as well be called, "tedious gimmick: the game". What's the worst thing you can accurately say about Three Houses' map/level design? That they're a bit bland and overly reused?

Where you see tedium, I see strategic value (strictly speaking for CQ).

The major difference between TH and SoV map design is, that TH maps have an inkling of what to do with space. And no swamps I suppose. 

Other than that... bland? Excuse me? Bland? Have you looked at the maps? Groups of enemies strewn about in a semi random way with a likeness to Awakening, storming towards you in a nicely timed fashion to be slaughtered like lambs is very far removed from being engaging, good or fun gameplay. Easy yes, mindless yes, both incredibly so (and arguably on Maddening too) but fun? Uh-oh, no sir.

I´m not even going to bother with overused because it´s so far beyond redemption, it makes Rev chapter 10 blush. Also, because this has already looked at this not so minor issue: Reddit - Map Reuse TH

 

By the by what exactly do you want from a strategy game? Do you play to chill, or play to think?

52 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

And, with Three Houses, at least the combat mechanics actually fit together nicely, unlike Fates' tacked-on mechanics that reek of wanting to appease Awakening fans and older-game fans at the same time.

The Combat Arts which are for the most part meh, but otherwise playstyle defining, or a class only saving grace? The battalions that are an imitation of Pair-Up stat bonuses? The adjutants, who are either utterly useless - or are a poor imitation of Pair-Up. The jumbled mess of weapons skills that want to be a WT and in trying so, become a system with a modicum of significance on Maddening alone? The disappointing nature of TH skill system which allows for Brave CA builds, the generic stack all the Blow-skills build and the Crit-Vantage/Dodge build and not much else.

Opposed to what mechanic in Fates? The PU system, which is probably the single hardest system to learn in FE and is still really fucken easy if you have the tiniest shred of intent to learn the games ruleset. Which seems fair play, given the nature of playing a new game. The debuffs, trying to incentivize you to not just slap everything with your highest damage stick?

 If Fates wanted to appease Old Shool Fans, I imagine you would have gotten a  cavalry unit with a Silver Weapon and 1-2 range, that takes single digit damage that can solo the game on any and every difficulty. As far as I´m aware, that´s not the case (not sure about Normal mode)?

52 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

The monastery is also miles better than MyCastle.

Inefficency > Efficency? IMMERSION-FOCUS > GAMEPLAY-FOCUS?

[Sunwoo]

I'm not sure how unpopular of an opinion this is, maybe it's only unpopular in a certain subsection of the fanbase. But imo FE doesn't work with avatars at all.

Some games are structured to work well with avatars or player inserts or otherwise blank slate characters you create yourself. Etrian Odyssey and the original Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles are games in which players pick an appearance and class for their character but the characters really have no established personality. Actual established characters are NPCs and don't have THAT much character, and this generally works for these types of games. It also worked decently okay when they decided to make actual characters in some of the EO games, but they didn't take away the option to just play the game with a team you made either.

FE, on the other hand, has always tried to be a story about war and the people fighting in them and the effects of war. While we can debate how successful each individual FE is at actually portraying these things, my main point is that games without heavy avatar involvement are trying to tell a story. They don't have a side mission of trying to pander to the player and make the player feel good and to make characters that appeal to players in the, uh, waifu or husbando way. The games were trying to tell a story about war and the heroes who fought in it. You were not a part of it, you were an observer. And that was what worked the best.

When you throw in an avatar that's meant to be "you" into the game, the plot feels less free to do what it wants. They want to make the player feel good, so everyone sucks up to the avatar, whether they deserve it or not. And whether it's portrayed well or not. Characters tend to be written with the primary purpose to appeal to the player, rather than to stand out as characters in their own right. And any complex "shades of gray" story falls apart because your avatar is given the option to side with the "villain" faction, but the developers are too afraid to let you go down an actual "villain" path because they're afraid it will offend some people who still want to be the good guy. (Looking at you, Conquest and Crimson Flower.) And things like Lilith's alternate universe and the monastery also break immersion because it lets you interact with characters in a fanservice-y way without realizing that sometimes the real shit that went down in the actual story does not jive well with having a long period of "nothing" in between.

And yeah, I get that some people really like those kinds of elements and ... not knocking you or anything, I just don't think it works in FE without fundamentally upending what FE was originally all about.

[Use the Falchion]

16 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

I'm not sure how unpopular of an opinion this is, maybe it's only unpopular in a certain subsection of the fanbase. But imo FE doesn't work with avatars at all.

Some games are structured to work well with avatars or player inserts or otherwise blank slate characters you create yourself. Etrian Odyssey and the original Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles are games in which players pick an appearance and class for their character but the characters really have no established personality. Actual established characters are NPCs and don't have THAT much character, and this generally works for these types of games. It also worked decently okay when they decided to make actual characters in some of the EO games, but they didn't take away the option to just play the game with a team you made either.

FE, on the other hand, has always tried to be a story about war and the people fighting in them and the effects of war. While we can debate how successful each individual FE is at actually portraying these things, my main point is that games without heavy avatar involvement are trying to tell a story. They don't have a side mission of trying to pander to the player and make the player feel good and to make characters that appeal to players in the, uh, waifu or husbando way. The games were trying to tell a story about war and the heroes who fought in it. You were not a part of it, you were an observer. And that was what worked the best.

When you throw in an avatar that's meant to be "you" into the game, the plot feels less free to do what it wants. They want to make the player feel good, so everyone sucks up to the avatar, whether they deserve it or not. And whether it's portrayed well or not. Characters tend to be written with the primary purpose to appeal to the player, rather than to stand out as characters in their own right. And any complex "shades of gray" story falls apart because your avatar is given the option to side with the "villain" faction, but the developers are too afraid to let you go down an actual "villain" path because they're afraid it will offend some people who still want to be the good guy. (Looking at you, Conquest and Crimson Flower.) And things like Lilith's alternate universe and the monastery also break immersion because it lets you interact with characters in a fanservice-y way without realizing that sometimes the real shit that went down in the actual story does not jive well with having a long period of "nothing" in between.

And yeah, I get that some people really like those kinds of elements and ... not knocking you or anything, I just don't think it works in FE without fundamentally upending what FE was originally all about.

Also not an unpopular opinion! 

I personally like most Avatars because I like shipping and head-canons and the like, and those are easier to do with what ultimately amounts to a self-insert, but I do see the point you're making and that many other share. When an Avatar enters the picture, they almost have to take up space that could go to the story because that's what players want. If they're not important, why are they there?

But an FE story doesn't need an Avatar in most cases, as evidenced by the six (and a half) games before one entered the series, and the four games afterwards. However, I do think there's a balance that can be struck, and IntSys is still trying to figure it out. They've tried having the main character be the Avatar in Corrin (YMMV on the success of that), having multiple main characters that share the spotlight with Avatars in Awakening and Three Houses (which work well for the most part IMO), and they've had Avatars that don't really share the spotlight but are supposed to be important all the same in FE12 and FE7. I think something along the lines of Mark and Robin (for most of Awakening) will be the way future Avatars go, where they're important to and/or present around the plot, but not at the center of it.

(I do disagree about your comment when it comes to the Monastery however. I think that the Monastery talks are the perfect thing to have when talking about real stuff in the story. After the Winter Ball mission, hearing everyone's condolences was really nice. When coming back from the timeskip or a particularly brutal mission, hearing everyone's thoughts was incredibly impactful. I'm not saying that we needed to hear all of those things for an entire month, but...I can see a certain sense to it.)

Edited July 31, 2021 by Use the Falchion

[Sunwoo]

Don't get me wrong, I do think that it's possible to strike a balance between the avatar and Fire Emblem as a series. I just don't think the IS of today is capable of doing it. At all.

They're failing horribly with the Summoner in Heroes, after all.

[zuibangde]

5 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

On the other hand I doubt Fates is going to get reevaluated by people. People already acknowledge the gameplay is really good so no opinions need to be changed there, and what people hate from a story perspective is often so overly wacky, culturally bizarre or ''objectively'' terrible that I don't think many people will be changing their minds on it. Being able to romance Percy and Elise will never stop being considered weird at best, Team Garon will never be seen as good villains and Corrin will likely remain controversial. 

 

 I somewhat agree with you on this. The story is a mess and the gameplay is generally agreed to be really good but I do think people are starting to be less critical on certain aspects of Fates. For Revelations specifically, I think more people are starting to acknowledge that while some of the maps in Revelations is a flop, it at least tried to experiment with different mechanics. I personally admired the ambition behind Revelation's maps...even though it didn't work most of the time, it felt like more heart was put into it than TH's map designs. I'd also say that Rev and TH are the two FE games with the highest degree of freedom in terms of choosing which characters and classes to use. In that sense, I find Revelation to be more replayable than TH mostly because of how tedious the gameplay of TH can be.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I just feel like Fates had more passion behind it and I think many people fail to recongize that? Yes, it didn't work as well as it could be and there are a lot of missed potentials/questionable decisions. However, the developers clearly had an idea what they wanted from Fates and tried to please all the fans of the series. Birthright for newcomers, Conquest for old fans of the series and Revelations as a 'sandbox' game where everyone (players and IS themselves alike) can experiment and 'have fun' with the mechanics even more. It seems like they tried to please so many people in all the possible aspects (an attempt for a compelling story, interesting gameplay, fanservice, child units etc.) and it the ended up just not working out as intended. 

TH on the other hand almost feels hollow at times? I'm not sure how to express my feelings accurately right now towards the game...it isn't bad but it just feels like it's missing something.

 

2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

And at least the characters in Three Houses are actually characters, rather than a collection of one-note quirks, glorified plot devices, and a mary sue at the center of it all.

I actually think many TH characters are also pretty one note and are basically rebranded versions of previous popular archetypes. They have the benefit of longer supports that allow them to fill in more fluff that appears to be developing their character but half of the time doesn't really end up going anywhere meaningful. TH also has the benefit of being fully voice acted which allows the characters to convey their emotions much better than Fates (or any non fully voice acted game) which really helps with directly showcasing their personalities. 

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

Don't get me wrong, I do think that it's possible to strike a balance between the avatar and Fire Emblem as a series. I just don't think the IS of today is capable of doing it. At all.

They're failing horribly with the Summoner in Heroes, after all.

I'm not sure if it's accurate to say they can't strike a balance or that they're failing. I think the more accurate thing to say is that they're not trying to strike a balance and are more interested in hitting that algorithm that will maximize sales. Because while a lot of old vocal fans on forums such as this might not be happy with a lot of decisions made, I think one can easily say from an objective stand point they've been the right decisions, because Fire Emblem has only continued to grow in success as a series since the release of Awakening almost ten years ago.

[Venger_06]

While I don't believe Fates as whole will get a drastic re-evaluation, Birthright may even start to receive more love. See below

1 hour ago, zuibangde said:

I actually think many TH characters are also pretty one note and are basically rebranded versions of previous popular archetypes.

Relevant:

Edited July 31, 2021 by Maof06

[Saint Rubenio]

Birthright good.

...that is all. Pretty sure it fits the thread name.

[Jotari]

23 minutes ago, Maof06 said:

While I don't believe Fates as whole will get a drastic re-evaluation, Birthright may even start to receive more love.

Relevant:

Ha. I love the line "Marriage serves no actual gameplay purpose!? It's just Waifu pandering!? Whoo!"

[vanguard333]

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Well it’s a terrible example honestly. It’s almost as bad as saying Naruto contradicted its themes of hard work because that’s such a surface level reading of Fates’s narrative. Also your general dismissive tone of Fates is making me angry to be frank. I just despise it when people blatantly disrespect creators and unfairly dismiss their work as meaningless and shallow without putting in the effort to actually understand the story in question. It’s one thing to not like a story. It’s another thing entirely to completely disrespect it as well as the people who created it and like it by saying “there is no deeper meaning”.

It's not a terrible example though as even the deep dive you pointed out with the retainers shows that Corrin not actually being blood-related to the Hoshido royals does break the theme; I might've been surface-level in my explanation, but I wasn't wrong in what I pointed out. It's nothing like that Naruto example as I wasn't wrong about the theme being there; even if the description I gave for the theme might've been lacking.

 

3 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

Where you see tedium, I see strategic value (strictly speaking for CQ).

Other than that... bland? Excuse me? Bland? Have you looked at the maps? Groups of enemies strewn about in a semi random way with a likeness to Awakening, storming towards you in a nicely timed fashion to be slaughtered like lambs is very far removed from being engaging, good or fun gameplay. Easy yes, mindless yes, both incredibly so (and arguably on Maddening too) but fun? Uh-oh, no sir.

I´m not even going to bother with overused because it´s so far beyond redemption, it makes Rev chapter 10 blush. Also, because this has already looked at this not so minor issue: Reddit - Map Reuse TH

 

By the by what exactly do you want from a strategy game? Do you play to chill, or play to think?

The Combat Arts which are for the most part meh, but otherwise playstyle defining, or a class only saving grace? The battalions that are an imitation of Pair-Up stat bonuses? The adjutants, who are either utterly useless - or are a poor imitation of Pair-Up. The jumbled mess of weapons skills that want to be a WT and in trying so, become a system with a modicum of significance on Maddening alone? The disappointing nature of TH skill system which allows for Brave CA builds, the generic stack all the Blow-skills build and the Crit-Vantage/Dodge build and not much else.

Opposed to what mechanic in Fates? The PU system, which is probably the single hardest system to learn in FE and is still really fucken easy if you have the tiniest shred of intent to learn the games ruleset. Which seems fair play, given the nature of playing a new game. The debuffs, trying to incentivize you to not just slap everything with your highest damage stick?

 If Fates wanted to appease Old Shool Fans, I imagine you would have gotten a  cavalry unit with a Silver Weapon and 1-2 range, that takes single digit damage that can solo the game on any and every difficulty. As far as I´m aware, that´s not the case (not sure about Normal mode)?

Inefficency > Efficency? IMMERSION-FOCUS > GAMEPLAY-FOCUS?

I hear that a lot, but I've played through Conquest multiple times and it was an exercise in frustration, annoyance and tedium. Some of the ideas had potential, like the Hoshido map having weather that can slow down or speed up flying units, but most of it was tedium. Case in point: the kitsune map that's an exercise in turtling up your units and playing red-light green-light; it's mindless annoyance.

Have you? Because your description makes it sound like you only remember the optional skirmish maps. There are a number of maps I could point out that are not like that at all; my personal favourite is chapter 12 on Crimson Flower, where there's an almost rhythmic back-and forth as you progress in the map: you send your units down the middle and boom: enemies in the bushes, you send your units down the side and boom: Seteth goes on the offensive if you defeat Flayn, and when you get past Seteth, boom: giant golems appear, there are ballistae and magic towers, and you still have to worry about Catherine before confronting Rhea. It's one of the best chapters in the game.

Map reuse is a large issue, but it is mainly confined to skirmishes and paralogues, and it's not like Fates had different maps specifically for the optional stuff.

For a strategy game, I play to think. And guess what: Three Houses so far has made me think a lot more than Fates did.

I don't understand what you're trying to say about combat arts. Battalions are not an imitation of pair-up stat bonuses; battalions offer another attack that can attack enemies or buff other playable units across an area rather than a specific tile, they don't require two units to become one, and they're overall a far better fit for Three Houses than attack & defense stance were for Fates, and they fit quite nicely alongside the new monster mechanics (as in how Three Houses handles monsters, not that monsters are inherently new as they're not), which are a great addition. I'll give you adjutants. I do not understand what you are trying to say with the rest of that; you're using too many acronyms and the sentence structure's hard to follow.

If by PU system you mean pair-up system, you mean that attempt to balance Awakening's pair-up system that still ended up unbalanced? As for the debuffs, they were a decent idea in theory, but in execution, they made it that, outside of stuff like shuriken and knives, it was better to go almost the whole game mainly using forged iron weapons outside of a couple specific situations. Not to mention that you rarely are incentivized to interact with the system, as a lot of your best units have unique weapons that don't debuff and that you'll almost never want to unequip.

Fates tried desperately to appease everyone; it's hardly even a criticism at this point as it's just a fact that we know about it and its development. You can't try to say that the circumstances around its development didn't happen, especially with that nonsensical an argument.

Is inefficiency the worst criticism you can lobby at the monastery? I've made that criticism. The fact is though that's ingrained into the game, it is far more immersive and more rewarding to utilize, it's actually part of the story rather than something tacked on with a brief in-story explanation only to be immediately forgotten about by the plot. Sure; each has its strengths and weaknesses, but Three Houses utilizes the strengths of the monastery far better than Fates utilizes the strengths of MyCastle.

 

2 hours ago, zuibangde said:

I actually think many TH characters are also pretty one note and are basically rebranded versions of previous popular archetypes. They have the benefit of longer supports that allow them to fill in more fluff that appears to be developing their character but half of the time doesn't really end up going anywhere meaningful. TH also has the benefit of being fully voice acted which allows the characters to convey their emotions much better than Fates (or any non fully voice acted game) which really helps with directly showcasing their personalities. 

Three Houses and Fates both have pretty much just as much support conversations. The difference is that the support conversations in Three Houses actually explore the characters and show some hidden depths to them; Fates' support conversations are mostly garbage, though it's not like they had much to work with. The characters in Three Houses have far more flesh to them than the characters in Fates by miles.

I've already made it clear that I don't care much for the addition of voice acting and I vastly prefer the Three Houses cast over the Fates cast, so that argument doesn't hold much water.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

4 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Okay; if that's what it sounds like, that's definitely not what I meant. I guess I was more trying to say that voice acting doesn't inherently make a remake better than a remake that didn't add voice acting.

Also, films and video games are different mediums with different strengths and weaknesses. I agree about voice acting being on a different axis from the script, but I disagree that it inherently adds to the presentation of a video game. Don't get me wrong; done well and in the correct games that would benefit from it, it can potentially add a lot. But it can also do nothing or even detract from the experience overall. SoV is definitely an example of voice acting adding a bit to the game, but I don't think it's nearly enough to make up for its far greater shortcomings as a remake than Shadow Dragon.

So, I would agree that if you have two different remakes, of two different games, and one of them has voice acting, that doesn't necessarily make it the better game. However, if you had two potential remakes of a given game, and they were identical - except that one version had voice acting, and the other did not - then my perspective is that the one with voice acting is almost certainly preferable to the one without. There can be exceptions if the voicework is particularly shoddy, but generally speaking, I find that being able to engage with characters audibly helps my immersion into the experience.

Truthfully, I'm agnostic on the question of whether Shadow Dragon or Echoes is a better remake. I think they're both fine games in their own rights, but then again, I think every Fire Emblem game is good (save, perhaps, for FE1 proper). I also see both of them making changes in drastic ways, but am of the mind that the changes don't inherently speak to their quality.

4 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the Pokémon model of having to buy every route separately (unless, like me, you bought the expensive special edition that could only be pre-ordered) is superior to having all the routes in the one game? Or if you're saying the route split is better because it happens at chapter 5 instead of chapter 1 and thus theoretically had more time to get to know each side, well again; you bought one of the versions first, so you already made your choice when you bought it and knew nothing about the characters in each faction. So Three Houses is still the better route split.

The best model would have been "you pay $40 to get this game, and at the route split, you get one 'credit', which can be redeemed for access to Conquest, Birthright, or Revelation." That way, the decision isn't forced until after you get to know the characters. Also, it could allow weirdos (like me) who only want to play Revelation the chance to jump right into that fun trash heap.

26 minutes ago, Maof06 said:

Relevant:

Ah, I see r/ShitpostEmblem is leaking. Anyway, that professor quote is all wrong - it should've been their highly distinctive and emotional lines, "...".

...Dammit, Ferdinand von Aegir hiding behind Lorenz is perfect. Despite my love for 3H's cast, I can't hate this one.

[Samz707]

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Ha. I love the line "Marriage serves no actual gameplay purpose!? It's just Waifu pandering!? Whoo!"

 I do prefer marriage being at the end like in FE7.

It makes no sense to me why our lot are apparently getting married in the middle of a war when time is usually of the essence.  (Like in Awakening.)

Also I'd rather have romances be for the characters sake than my Elite Eugenics Program to have the best child unit super soldiers. (even if I wish the 3H confession art was all in third person, I honestly just find it kinda creepy having first person CG art.)

Edited July 31, 2021 by Samz707

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

 I do prefer marriage being at the end like in FE7.

It makes no sense to me why our lot are apparently getting married in the middle of a war when time is usually of the essence.  (Like in Awakening.)

Also I'd rather have romances be for the characters sake than my Elite Eugenics Program to have the best child unit super soldiers. (even if I wish the 3H confession art was all in third person, I honestly just find it kinda creepy having first person CG art.)

If we're going to have marriage then I prefer it to be of the Genealogy of the Holy War variety, existing for the sake of gameplay and plot (I'd almost give that to Awakening too, but let's face it, none of the child units not named Lucina play any sort of role in the plot of Awakening). If we're going to have it just purely for plot, well then I'd rather it be like pre Awakening games and give the character predefined arcs and relationships with specific units, rather than try to cobble together romantic endings with a bunch of units who weren't really trending towards a romantic ending and are given paired supports that look more like madlibs than an actual shared conclusion of respective plots. And to be fair Three Houses wasn't absolutely terrible in this regard, but it was such a hugely unfinished game I think I'd rather the effort was spared for something else. Like making Silver Snow and Verdant Wind at least superficially different.

[Samz707]

7 minutes ago, Jotari said:

If we're going to have marriage then I prefer it to be of the Genealogy of the Holy War variety, existing for the sake of gameplay and plot (I'd almost give that to Awakening too, but let's face it, none of the child units not named Lucina play any sort of role in the plot of Awakening). If we're going to have it just purely for plot, well then I'd rather it be like pre Awakening games and give the character predefined arcs and relationships with specific units, rather than try to cobble together romantic endings with a bunch of units who weren't really trending towards a romantic ending and are given paired supports that look more like madlibs than an actual shared conclusion of respective plots. And to be fair Three Houses wasn't absolutely terrible in this regard, but it was such a hugely unfinished game I think I'd rather the effort was spared for something else. Like making Silver Snow and Verdant Wind at least superficially different.

Not to mention the Children can be easily skipped. (I honestly found them more trouble than they were worth, so I only got Morgan and Noire, and Noire went on the Bench almost instantly.)

Yeah I wish we had the FE7 way, where it's a handful of well-written romances as opposed to "Hey we're co-workers, lets marry" feel Awakening has. (I didn't like it when it was my first FE game and I definitely don't like it now.)

 

 

 

[Venger_06]

19 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Ah, I see r/ShitpostEmblem is leaking.

Hate the game, not the player.

20 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Truthfully, I'm agnostic on the question of whether Shadow Dragon or Echoes is a better remake.

New Mystery is the better remake.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Maof06

[Use the Falchion]

4 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

They're failing horribly with the Summoner in Heroes, after all.

Heroes isn't main-game quality and isn't really held to main-game standards. Besides, that Avatar is more of an Isekai self-insert protagonist and not a standard Avatar. And given how well Heroes does in terms of revenue, I'd say they may have actually succeeded.

 

57 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

It makes no sense to me why our lot are apparently getting married in the middle of a war when time is usually of the essence.  (Like in Awakening.)

I mean...when you don't know if you're going to live to see tomorrow, it makes sense to make the most of today, right? And even in war, people need something to celebrate and give them hope. I'm not saying it 100% works, but it does work better than Fates, since most of the couples don't start having children until after the war. (Chrom and possibly Robin being the exceptions.)

 

[ZeManaphy]

1 hour ago, Samz707 said:

 I do prefer marriage being at the end like in FE7.

It makes no sense to me why our lot are apparently getting married in the middle of a war when time is usually of the essence.  (Like in Awakening.)

Also I'd rather have romances be for the characters sake than my Elite Eugenics Program to have the best child unit super soldiers. (even if I wish the 3H confession art was all in third person, I honestly just find it kinda creepy having first person CG art.)

I have heard of people meeting some of their best friends and spouses through serving in the army, so I don’t think it’s preposterous at all for people to marry while serving the military.

[Keikyushi]

8 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

I'm not sure how unpopular of an opinion this is, maybe it's only unpopular in a certain subsection of the fanbase. But imo FE doesn't work with avatars at all.

Some games are structured to work well with avatars or player inserts or otherwise blank slate characters you create yourself. Etrian Odyssey and the original Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles are games in which players pick an appearance and class for their character but the characters really have no established personality. Actual established characters are NPCs and don't have THAT much character, and this generally works for these types of games. It also worked decently okay when they decided to make actual characters in some of the EO games, but they didn't take away the option to just play the game with a team you made either.

FE, on the other hand, has always tried to be a story about war and the people fighting in them and the effects of war. While we can debate how successful each individual FE is at actually portraying these things, my main point is that games without heavy avatar involvement are trying to tell a story. They don't have a side mission of trying to pander to the player and make the player feel good and to make characters that appeal to players in the, uh, waifu or husbando way. The games were trying to tell a story about war and the heroes who fought in it. You were not a part of it, you were an observer. And that was what worked the best.

When you throw in an avatar that's meant to be "you" into the game, the plot feels less free to do what it wants. They want to make the player feel good, so everyone sucks up to the avatar, whether they deserve it or not. And whether it's portrayed well or not. Characters tend to be written with the primary purpose to appeal to the player, rather than to stand out as characters in their own right. And any complex "shades of gray" story falls apart because your avatar is given the option to side with the "villain" faction, but the developers are too afraid to let you go down an actual "villain" path because they're afraid it will offend some people who still want to be the good guy. (Looking at you, Conquest and Crimson Flower.) And things like Lilith's alternate universe and the monastery also break immersion because it lets you interact with characters in a fanservice-y way without realizing that sometimes the real shit that went down in the actual story does not jive well with having a long period of "nothing" in between.

And yeah, I get that some people really like those kinds of elements and ... not knocking you or anything, I just don't think it works in FE without fundamentally upending what FE was originally all about.

I think that FE stories even without an Avatar have always centered around a main character aka the lord, and many of them can be marketed as an Avatar with no ill effect. On the topic of whether or not they counts as an effective way for the players to self insert, since they are not a blank character and all, I'd say they are still good at their Avatar job, because their personality is barebone and weak enough player can still project themselves to the character.

I think people rejects the whole idea of Avatar rather than the role of Avatar in the story. If Marth is the avatar but have the same role in the story, I fell people would still jump on the hate wagon against him right away.

I still like the idea of Avatar, and I do understand the hate for them. I think the best way to compromise both is to let the Avatar have no influence to the main story whatsoever; they are just another soldier in the army and get the same respect, but let them have a personal, seperated character arc (can even tell the effect of the war through this), and can bond with the players' favorite characters aka making waifu and husbando. That way, the Avatar won't harm the main story, while still fufill their role effectively.

(And no, Robin doesn't count. When I say no influence, I mean no influence whatsoever. The Robin worship without making them the main character is kinda jarring IMO. Go all the way, or none at all)

7 hours ago, zuibangde said:

I actually think many TH characters are also pretty one note and are basically rebranded versions of previous popular archetypes. They have the benefit of longer supports that allow them to fill in more fluff that appears to be developing their character but half of the time doesn't really end up going anywhere meaningful. TH also has the benefit of being fully voice acted which allows the characters to convey their emotions much better than Fates (or any non fully voice acted game) which really helps with directly showcasing their personalities. 

I think Fates and Awakening characters has as much personality as 3H, but the horrendous supports and lack of screen time compared to 3H really destroy them.

[Ouzyxol]

(fact, not unpopular opinion) I've been playing the FE series for more than a decade. I've played all but the first 3 games in the series multiple times over.

 

(unpopular opinion 1) I still hate Jagen/Oifey-archetypes and I dislike Est-archetypes. Most people hate one or the other, but not both.

(2) The Snes games where great, GBA games are the worst, GC/Wii games are good, DS games where eh, 3DS games where bad, and 3H I have no strong opinions about one way or the other.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I hear that a lot, but I've played through Conquest multiple times and it was an exercise in frustration, annoyance and tedium. Some of the ideas had potential, like the Hoshido map having weather that can slow down or speed up flying units, but most of it was tedium. Case in point: the kitsune map that's an exercise in turtling up your units and playing red-light green-light; it's mindless annoyance.

Have you? Because your description makes it sound like you only remember the optional skirmish maps. There are a number of maps I could point out that are not like that at all; my personal favourite is chapter 12 on Crimson Flower, where there's an almost rhythmic back-and forth as you progress in the map: you send your units down the middle and boom: enemies in the bushes, you send your units down the side and boom: Seteth goes on the offensive if you defeat Flayn, and when you get past Seteth, boom: giant golems appear, there are ballistae and magic towers, and you still have to worry about Catherine before confronting Rhea. It's one of the best chapters in the game.

Map reuse is a large issue, but it is mainly confined to skirmishes and paralogues, and it's not like Fates had different maps specifically for the optional stuff.

For a strategy game, I play to think. And guess what: Three Houses so far has made me think a lot more than Fates did.

I don't understand what you're trying to say about combat arts. Battalions are not an imitation of pair-up stat bonuses; battalions offer another attack that can attack enemies or buff other playable units across an area rather than a specific tile, they don't require two units to become one, and they're overall a far better fit for Three Houses than attack & defense stance were for Fates, and they fit quite nicely alongside the new monster mechanics (as in how Three Houses handles monsters, not that monsters are inherently new as they're not), which are a great addition. I'll give you adjutants. I do not understand what you are trying to say with the rest of that; you're using too many acronyms and the sentence structure's hard to follow.

If by PU system you mean pair-up system, you mean that attempt to balance Awakening's pair-up system that still ended up unbalanced? As for the debuffs, they were a decent idea in theory, but in execution, they made it that, outside of stuff like shuriken and knives, it was better to go almost the whole game mainly using forged iron weapons outside of a couple specific situations. Not to mention that you rarely are incentivized to interact with the system, as a lot of your best units have unique weapons that don't debuff and that you'll almost never want to unequip.

Fates tried desperately to appease everyone; it's hardly even a criticism at this point as it's just a fact that we know about it and its development. You can't try to say that the circumstances around its development didn't happen, especially with that nonsensical an argument.

Is inefficiency the worst criticism you can lobby at the monastery? I've made that criticism. The fact is though that's ingrained into the game, it is far more immersive and more rewarding to utilize, it's actually part of the story rather than something tacked on with a brief in-story explanation only to be immediately forgotten about by the plot. Sure; each has its strengths and weaknesses, but Three Houses utilizes the strengths of the monastery far better than Fates utilizes the strengths of MyCastle.

Guess what, CQ is also my most played FE Game. The more I knew about the game, the dumber shit I tried out.

Well, when you saw the free-fox-fur chapter what was your reaction? Did you check their stats and skills and saw that they´re threatening to pretty much only horse units, thus loading up your units (but let´s be real - wyverns) with relevant PUs, tonics and Weaponry and aggressively wipe them out, or decided whelp, can´t deal with any of this, let me hide in the corner? Both are a form of strategy, sure enough, but the latter has a great chance to bite you in the butt, since you give up initiative. Which is all around the lesson in CQ.

I am speaking from the perspective of someone, who gets so bored of TH maps, I LTC every kill boss chapter as best I can. Because there is nothing about them to warrant a prolonged stay beyond turn 1.

Yeah, chapter 12 of BE, right I remember – actually no, I had to watch someone’s playthrough of it. Exactly what I´ve said before – nicely separated groups of enemies, sitting ducks, waiting to be ripped apart by your flying units. Not to mention, the golems are a non-issue unless you decidedly go after them, since stairs are their natural enemy and even then, they are still TH monsters – HP sponges with a dash of resources. And Catherine and Cyril even doing you the favour of coming towards you instead of staying in a formation, removing any challenge of taking them out.

I see, you didn´t read the reddit post. Have another, with a comparison TH v Fates, that just shows how much Fates blows TH out the water: Analysis: Three Houses has only 36 unique maps. : fireemblem (reddit.com). As a side note: CQ doesn´t even have skirmishes.

Ad CA: Most CAs are worthless, except Brave ones and those are some units/classes only saving grace (Swift Strikes, Hunters Volley). Ad Battalion: Yes, they are. Their attacks are largely wasted on enemies who are not monsters or bosses and in those cases are of somewhat questionable accuracy and strength due to boss skills (is it called Commander?). But stat boosts are eternal and without them, your units take a great hit to their perfromance (the battalion booste being even bigger than the stat boosts in Fates). Ad Monsters: You´ve already read what I think of them: HP sponges with a dash of resources, unless they are bosses, in which case boring. Ad jumbled mess: Do you mean the WT part and the skill build part?

Ad PU: Fates PU system is far more balanced than Awakenings system (a low bar to be sure) and otherwise an optional way to react to the problem (map) at hand. You can play entirely without it, though that is sure to make thing more difficult. It´s a less broken mechanic than TH WL. Ad debuffs and weapons: What? What weapon is best used, is entirely depended on the unit. Kaze can get away with steel weaponry, since he is so fast. Effie doesn´t need speed, but power, so she too can use steel without worry (2 simple examples). What weapons you use depends on your enemy and nothing else – there rarely is a BiS. And I assume you mean the Yato, Siegfried, Raijinto and Fujin Yumi – yeah with the exemption of the latter two being given to S-Rank class units there is plenty of reason to change weapons on Corrin/Xander. The WT being the major one.

Then please properly explain to me, how Fates tried to appease every fan group, from the first players to the Awakening players. I am not that well versed in FE history after all and you stating it as a “fact” just makes me all the more dubious.

Inefficency is a big fucken deal in a strategy game? Granted in the monastery, inefficiency means waste of time. The success of TH campaign is locked behind doing monastery chores – I will die on this hill until @lenticular provides us with information on her monastery less run. Yes it´s very immersive talking and being blocked by people who are invisible. Or running against a door for 2 minutes, because the area hasn´t loaded yet. It´s also very immersive invading students’ private quarters. I´m kidding of course. Waiting to play the game, but not even playing the game, instead waiting to do the chores required for a miniscule amount of optimization, isn´t immersive, it´s annoying. More rewarding? What about TH monastery is rewarding, I must have missed it? The gardening minigame of see you next week? The fishing minigame of reflexes? Being a Loot Goblin? Teatime, face pet reloaded? MyCastle manages to offer more than the monastery in a tiny fraction of its space: up to 4 shops, up to 4 resource buildings, 1 smithy, 1 arena, 1 mess hall, 1 lottery, 1 prison and more that´s not necessarily game relevant, on top of being fully customizable and a potential map for invasions or PvP if that would be your intent at all. Not to mention how little time it takes to use MyCastle efficently as opposed to the monasteries whole lot of nothing. 

[Etrurian emperor]

10 hours ago, zuibangde said:

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I just feel like Fates had more passion behind it and I think many people fail to recongize that? Yes, it didn't work as well as it could be and there are a lot of missed potentials/questionable decisions. However, the developers clearly had an idea what they wanted from Fates and tried to please all the fans of the series. Birthright for newcomers, Conquest for old fans of the series and Revelations as a 'sandbox' game where everyone (players and IS themselves alike) can experiment and 'have fun' with the mechanics even more. It seems like they tried to please so many people in all the possible aspects (an attempt for a compelling story, interesting gameplay, fanservice, child units etc.) and it the ended up just not working out as intended. 

Actually with Fates I often suspect the team did not have passion for the project. I've often made the argument that the Fates team knowingly implemented aspects that didn't work because they were chasing the wrong priorities. The theme of blood vs loyalty being discarded like trash doesn't seem like an idea that comes from a team that was passionate about that premise, the second gens being shoved in at the last minute despite the team knowing they had no place in the game seems very cynical, no one on the team seemed to care a hoot about Fateslandia as a setting, and the whole motivation regarding team Garon seems a general unwillingness to put in any work on the villain front. You even have rumors of the infamous ''team B'' who were far more interested in making Fates a hentai game than making it a Fire Emblem game. 

When things don't work in Fates I often get the impression the team colluded behind the scenes to make it not work which means I can't really deem them to be a passionate bunch.

12 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Yes, a primary theme of Fates is the idea of blood vs bond family but the conclusion the narrative reaches is that it doesn’t matter whether or not your family is related to you by blood or bond and that you should trust your family regardless of how you are related to them.  Even so you can argue that Corrin not being blood related to the Hoshidian royals actually adds to the whole theme of blood not mattering because even after learning the truth they still love and trust each other regardless of that fact because of the bond they built together. You only learn that information in the S-support. There’s a lot more I could get into but then we’d be here all day so I’m just gonna leave it there

Personally I've never considered the premise being dropped was to send the message to convey blood not mattering. It feels like a very last minute addition when someone on the marketing team noticed players might want to romance their tsundere little brother or tomboy big sister. And I think Ryoma carries a large part of the blame for that. His behavior during the choice between the two kingdoms isn't depicted as him knowing Corrin isn't his brother either but maliciously withholding it to turn him against Nohr, nor does he try and argue that blood does not matter. Its depicted as an older brother being hurt and angry his younger brother has betrayed the family and him scoffing at the idea that the Nohrians could ever be Corrin's family. Its the Nohrians who argue blood doesn't matter but the big argument of the Hoshidan royals is about Corrin being their brother by birth even if they know that isn't the case. If this scene was written in mind with the idea of Hoshido knowing Corrin isn't their sibling it makes them incredibly two faced and duplicitous which can't be the intended idea because it never comes up again and it goes against the ''theme'' of Hoshido generally being the benevolent faction.

12 hours ago, Ottservia said:

The blood vs bond theme extends further than the just Corrin’s relationship with the royals. You’ll notice how in Birthright a lot of the retainers serve their liege out of some blood obligation because their whole family line has been duty bound to serve the Hoshidian royal family. We see this in characters like Saizo, Kaze, Oboro, and Hana. The only exception I’m aware of being Azama. Though I can’t really speak for the other retainers cause I haven’t read enough of their supports. Even so, it’s still an idea that’s emphasized. By contrast in Nohr, you have a bit of a found family theme where every retainer(with the exception of Effie and Arthur) all lost their original families be it due to war, neglect, assassination, murder, abandonment, etc. and have sworn to follow their lieges out of loyalty and trust rather than blood obligation.

I consider that more of an attempt at world building. Hoshido being very prim and proper, valuing ''legacies of service'' from certain noble families while Nohr is more meritocratic and willing to employ any hobo or random psychopath that is talented enough, something that gets them both the likes of Effie and the likes of Iago.  

Edited August 1, 2021 by Etrurian emperor