Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Ninian is pushed so heavily by the game, it honestly makes me wonder why they even gave Eliwood other paired endings. It feels very much like the story was originally conceived as the story of Roy's parents and that she was intended to be his canon mother (that one ambiguous reference to her in binding Blade not withstanding). I think the thing that made them change their mind was when they came up with an idea of a prologue campaign for the western fans and thus Lyn was created. Sensing the marketing appeal of supports (which had only been around for a single game at the time) and how players would like to pair their female lord with their male lord, they abandoned the idea of Eliwood being a canon partner and auto support with Ninan, but created Pent and Louise so the idea could be expressed elsewhere. The story was then left pretty much entirely the same.

All purely speculation on my part, but it would make a lot of sense if that's what happened behind the scenes.

Or maybe it was just mostly a Kaga thing. Since barring Genealogy, all his games the concept of pairings was mostly out of player control, barring killing off the characters. Which still holds throughout his Saga games, from TearRing to Vestaria and whatever comes beyond.

After all, it's telling that, in spite of Genealogy, you have Thraccia going:

"Yeah, whatever your choice was, LewynxErynis is canon."

"Oh, you thought Lene and Coirpre's substitutes were better? Well, too bad, here's Coirpre, he exists."

"You could pair up people and that was it for the most part... well, here's a sudden half-siblings situation... possibly. But Beowulf most possibly definitely also had a kid with someone outside the Gen 1 cast."

And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Or maybe it was just mostly a Kaga thing. Since barring Genealogy, all his games the concept of pairings was mostly out of player control, barring killing off the characters. Which still holds throughout his Saga games, from TearRing to Vestaria and whatever comes beyond.

After all, it's telling that, in spite of Genealogy, you have Thraccia going:

"Yeah, whatever your choice was, LewynxErynis is canon."

"Oh, you thought Lene and Coirpre's substitutes were better? Well, too bad, here's Coirpre, he exists."

"You could pair up people and that was it for the most part... well, here's a sudden half-siblings situation... possibly. But Beowulf most possibly definitely also had a kid with someone outside the Gen 1 cast."

And so on.

And even Genealogy has a forced pairing of Sigurd and Dirdre. Which in the context of all of the other NES and SNES era games, make Seliph kind of stand out as a bachelor. He's just as eligible to marry as any typical Gen II unit, but he has no suggests or implied pairings at all. I think Lana is probably who players in inadvertently pair him up with, but per what ShantPete'sFirstmate that's kind of more down to her being the earliest female unit he's hanging around with so it's somewhat an unintentional fit.

Actually taking a look at his conversation and love growths, it seems he does start with 100 love points with Lana, which would probably be why he hooks up with her a lot more willingly than Larcei. So she would be closest to his "canon" pairing, if we're to treat it like a spectrum. But it's a lot more subdued than even a lot of modern suggested pairings and Lana is really a minor character in the grandscheme of things.

And of course if I don't bring it up then someone else will, yeah, he starts with almost maxed love points with his sister and then has negative growths in either a really random coding error or some massively bizare metatextual commentary about incest that the players cannot be aware of without breaking open the game or unintentionally glicthing a marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And even Genealogy has a forced pairing of Sigurd and Dirdre. Which in the context of all of the other NES and SNES era games, make Seliph kind of stand out as a bachelor. He's just as eligible to marry as any typical Gen II unit, but he has no suggests or implied pairings at all. I think Lana is probably who players in inadvertently pair him up with, but per what ShantPete'sFirstmate that's kind of more down to her being the earliest female unit he's hanging around with so it's somewhat an unintentional fit.

Actually taking a look at his conversation and love growths, it seems he does start with 100 love points with Lana, which would probably be why he hooks up with her a lot more willingly than Larcei. So she would be closest to his "canon" pairing, if we're to treat it like a spectrum. But it's a lot more subdued than even a lot of modern suggested pairings and Lana is really a minor character in the grandscheme of things.

And of course if I don't bring it up then someone else will, yeah, he starts with almost maxed love points with his sister and then has negative growths in either a really random coding error or some massively bizare metatextual commentary about incest that the players cannot be aware of without breaking open the game or unintentionally glicthing a marriage.

Oh, right, even with Genealogy he did adhere to his stance to a degree. Likely as a compromise. Pairing up what up to player control... barring some exceptions, and you still have "suggested" ideas of pairings. Either in love growth per turn, or starting base. Or even with the talk convos.

Like, Ares and Lene starting with 300 points makes it quite obvious what is the intention there.

Or the big one, Lewyn and Erynis having a large starting base... and then that talk convo in Chapter 4 that pretty much sets them as lovers. Which is a property unique to them, as it were.

And yeah, Lana seems to be the intended pairing for him. The starting 100 points is one thing, but then they have a talk convo that gives an additional 100. Which Larcei doesn't have. But yeah.

I think the negative points gain is intentional. They're meant to be smitten with each other at first sight, and then... it peters out. Well, if you use the augury, you could tell they are actually going backwards, but yeah, not something normally visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Diagonal take here, but while I like physical ranged swords, I think they only make sense as throwing swords, like the Kodachi. When weapons are attacking with an "energy blade", having them do physical damage is just nonsensical. If that's not "magic", then what is?

Fair point, even though it looks cool, it doesn`t make sense for that kind of beam not to be magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Diagonal take here, but while I like physical ranged swords, I think they only make sense as throwing swords, like the Kodachi. When weapons are attacking with an "energy blade", having them do physical damage is just nonsensical. If that's not "magic", then what is?

I'm not completely sure that, from a point of realism, there should be a massive difference between taking a sword to the face and a fire ball. Doubly so for spells like Sagittae where it's throwing actual physical objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'm not completely sure that, from a point of realism, there should be a massive difference between taking a sword to the face and a fire ball. Doubly so for spells like Sagittae where it's throwing actual physical objects.

I tend to assume that def is about your armour, your shield, and all the other things you have that make sure that when someone swings a sword at you, it isn't hitting you in the face. And res is about your charms, wards, counterspells, and all the other things you have to make sure that if someone throws a fireball at you that it isn't hitting you in the face. So, for a wind blade (or whatever) the question is: which will protect me better, a shield or a talisman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Doubly so for spells like Sagittae where it's throwing actual physical objects.

I'd argue Sagittae is using energy for the arrows in SoV and in 3H it's a bunch of white orbs, so I'd say it's not physical magic in those games.

Maybe that should be for an earth element set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lenticular said:

I tend to assume that def is about your armour, your shield, and all the other things you have that make sure that when someone swings a sword at you, it isn't hitting you in the face. And res is about your charms, wards, counterspells, and all the other things you have to make sure that if someone throws a fireball at you that it isn't hitting you in the face. So, for a wind blade (or whatever) the question is: which will protect me better, a shield or a talisman?

And counterspells, charms and wards wouldn't be able to protect you from getting sliced open by a sword?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Florete said:

What about these?

CG46.png

CG47.png

Huh, I'm not sure where I got the idea that these CGs didn't exist. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. 

9 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

After all, it's telling that, in spite of Genealogy, you have Thraccia going:

"Yeah, whatever your choice was, LewynxErynis is canon."

"Oh, you thought Lene and Coirpre's substitutes were better? Well, too bad, here's Coirpre, he exists."

"You could pair up people and that was it for the most part... well, here's a sudden half-siblings situation... possibly. But Beowulf most possibly definitely also had a kid with someone outside the Gen 1 cast."

Honestly I'm broadly okay with Thracia doing this. I don't see it as "canonizing" a certain set of pairings from Genealogy. Rather, it's a "what if?" scenario that uses certain possible outcomes of its predecessor to make its own canon. The only "problematic" one of the bunch is the suggestion that Nanna and Diarmuid have different fathers. Because that was not a possible outcome in Genealogy itself.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I'm not completely sure that, from a point of realism, there should be a massive difference between taking a sword to the face and a fire ball. Doubly so for spells like Sagittae where it's throwing actual physical objects.

I don't think that Sagittae is throwing anything physical, though? I've seen no indication that either incarnation of the spell is corporeal.

Anyway, this calls back to the whole "fire pushes you back" thing that I hate in fiction. Like, if you're hit by a fireball, you're not being pushed back by some physical force. You're staying in the same place while being burned alive. Of course, there's also a point that "sword to the face" isn't something you should just be able to shrug off, and is more likely causing serious injury or death.

1 hour ago, Punished Dayni said:

Maybe that should be for an earth element set.

Would love to see a "Tremor" spell that targets Defense. Maybe give it a side effect to change the terrain, too.

21 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And counterspells, charms and wards wouldn't be able to protect you from getting sliced open by a sword?

Only if it uses magnets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Honestly I'm broadly okay with Thracia doing this. I don't see it as "canonizing" a certain set of pairings from Genealogy. Rather, it's a "what if?" scenario that uses certain possible outcomes of its predecessor to make its own canon. The only "problematic" one of the bunch is the suggestion that Nanna and Diarmuid have different fathers. Because that was not a possible outcome in Genealogy itself.

Of course Thracia is a what if. Leif doesn't even fight Boom in it!

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Of course Thracia is a what if. Leif doesn't even fight Boom in it!

Nah, Fates is the If game. Well, sure, Mjollnir can be quite Boombastic.

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

Because that was not a possible outcome in Genealogy itself.

Why should that be an issue? They're different games, after all, and the story of Thraccia is not constricted by the gameplay of Genealogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Eliwood x Ninian but I suppose its not a good look that IS so blatantly favors it over Eliwood's other ships. Up to the point Heroes seemed to come perilously close to outright insisting it was canon in one of the forging bonds. If IS feels so strongly about the ship then uh...maybe don't bother making it optional and make the others come off as red haired stepchildren in comparison.

As far as Blazing Sword shipping goes I've always been a bit troubled with Hector. Frankly I think pretty much none of the girls he can come up make for a satisfying pair with him. Chiefly Lyn since it implies she either abandons her daughter which or gets ill and dies, neither of which sounds very in character for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heroes seems to subscribe to the logic that multiple universes exist quite heavily. That one Forging Bonds that was super heavy on Eliwood/Ninian could also be interpreted by the player as "this Nils happens to be from a world where his sister married Eliwood, but it's not the absolute canon". I have my preferred pairings, but I legitimately don't give a fuck what is considered canon. Game gives me an option to pick my own pairing, I'm gonna do it and not care whether it was ever supposed to be "the real choice" or not.

What I do believe is canon though is that a male Corrin picked Hoshido and a female Corrin picked Nohr. And sure, players are free to mess around with whatever combinations of Corrin gender and path and pairings they want, but Heirs of Fate will always have f!Kana with the Hoshidans and m!Kana with the Nohrians ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2023 at 1:09 PM, Jotari said:

And counterspells, charms and wards wouldn't be able to protect you from getting sliced open by a sword?

I mean, at the end of the day: it's magic. And since magic doesn't actually exist [citation needed] it can work however the people telling the story or designing the world want it to work. So, sure, we could have a world where the characters with the highest defense are mages who are throwing up blade wards, arcane shields and abjuration magic. But we don't. We have games where magic characters and classes mostly have garbage def but good res. So in the worlds of Fire Emblem, apparently those charms and wards that protect you from swords just don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lenticular said:

I mean, at the end of the day: it's magic. And since magic doesn't actually exist [citation needed] it can work however the people telling the story or designing the world want it to work. So, sure, we could have a world where the characters with the highest defense are mages who are throwing up blade wards, arcane shields and abjuration magic. But we don't. We have games where magic characters and classes mostly have garbage def but good res. So in the worlds of Fire Emblem, apparently those charms and wards that protect you from swords just don't exist.

Oh yeah, I'm not actively complaining here. It's totally down to a gameplay thing. And that's absolutely fine. I don't think realism needs to take any major precedence. And that's why I'm also fine with Wind Edges dealing physical damage. At least from a conceptual perspective. In terms of gameplay balance and differentiating weapon types, there is some sense in denying swords a hand axe/javelin equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/6/2023 at 5:06 AM, Dark Holy Elf said:

I'm mixed about this. Honestly, in many games, I'd approve of Veteran+ or similar skills, because weakness-hitting weapons are incredibly overtuned in some Fire Emblem games. Any idiot with a Silver Bow can one-shot fliers, anyone with a Poleaxe can wreck cavaliers? That's arguably fine for mooks, but not bosses. Killing a pegasus knight boss with a single crossbow shot is idiocy and I don't want to see that again. Optimally bosses need to present distinct challenges and you probably should not be able to easily kill them one in one combat (I'm not saying it should be impossible, but it should feel impressive when you manage it... Jeritza on Maddening is about as tough to kill with weakness-hitting damage as a boss should be, IMO). So in many games I'd approve of such skills.

But it's arguably unnecessary in Engage specifically, because (a) weakness-hitting weapons aren't tuned as strongly as many other FEs, unless you invest a lot of resources into forging them, and (b) bosses have multiple healthbars so one-shotting them alone does not prevent a poatentially interesting fight; you have to do it 1-3 more times.

Personally I'd probably have given Zephia a Winged Shield-type ability since she's a major opponent and meant to be intimdiating, and Radiant Bow is one of the few weakness-hitting weapons which does reach silly numbers, but I'm not sure how many other bosses need it. Mauvier and Marni would not be terribly affected.

I do approve of all bosses being immune to break. Break would just let you walk over them.

The maps the challenge, not the boss. A SRPG is not the game to try and put hypertuned enemies in, especially Fire Emblem which is modestly light in unit customization (skill + weapon, as opposed to armor +weapon + skills and whatever else), unless there are story related reasons. That´s how you end up with hyper specific set ups like the TH chapter 4 DK kill (not that he´s the boss just gating most of the map behind him), the H5 Tiki suicide nuke on Medeus or Hyman just straight softlocking your game behind his bulging speed stat.

Spoiler

and (b) bosses have multiple healthbars so one-shotting them alone does not prevent a poatentially interesting fight; you have to do it 1-3 more times.

I don´t feel like oneshotting a boss makes for an interesting fight to begin with, but then what else are you supposed to do when the enemy casually deletes 9/10 of your units healthbar with a 25% chance to crit or straight onerounds and you can´t guarantee you can take out all other enemies in range.

It wasn´t interesting in TH with it´s barrier shenaningans and it ain´t interesting in Engage either, imo.

Granted, I don´t think there are interesting fights, if defined as 1v1, in FE to begin with, the allure lies entirely in solving the map in itself. 

 

On another note:

All units, except Villagers, T1 Archers and T1 Priests/mages and whatever personal class (Bard, Dancer and so on) should be tagged as armored, with different degrees of effectiveness per weapon.

Half-cooked example: Hammer gets x4 for metal (Armor Knights, Great Knights, Paladins, Wyverns), x3 for leather (Mercenary, Myrm, Sniper, Pegasus, Thief, Lancer, Horses), 2x for cloth (Mages, Priests, Shamans), Armorslayer x2 for metal, x3 for leather, 4x for cloth, Rapier x4 for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Yeah. It seems like a multiverse kind of deal which is a pretty stale concept by now

Lazy too, if it's just "X but opposite". Which is precisely what I don't like about it.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

The maps the challenge, not the boss. A SRPG is not the game to try and put hypertuned enemies in, especially Fire Emblem which is modestly light in unit customization (skill + weapon, as opposed to armor +weapon + skills and whatever else), unless there are story related reasons.

Plenty of strategy RPGs manage interesting single powerful enemies just fine. I don't think Fire Emblem is the best in the genre at it (and has seriously struggled as recently as the Shadow Dragon examples you cite) but it's been getting better.

Bosses exist. They have unique names and story importance, and play unique music when you face them. Logically they are supposed to present unique challenges as well... maybe not as interesting as a whole map, no, but they should present something. You should spend more time figuring out how to approach them than you do any one other enemy on the map.

My point is that "just have anyone pick up an effective weapon and one-shot them" is anti-climactic for the unique challenge they are clearly supposed to present and I'd rather not see that happen. There are several solutions to this problem, and I certainly don't mean to say that giving the boss a Winged Shield / Veteran+ or similar skill is required, but it's certainly one option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'll be the one to say it. 

Fell Xenologue's premise is good actually, the world it takes place in is not only a first for FE storylines but it follows up what base Engage was riding the line on in many ways. All four countries keeping each other in check in a messy moral grayish manner is intriguing. Also, it'll end up adding a lot to the cast. For both contrast and if it provides anything outside of "evil for sake of evil", even the slightest of explanations would bump interest in notable ways.

The immediate fan content confirms this premise's inherent appeal potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2023 at 7:53 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

They have unique names and story importance, and play unique music when you face them.

All of this applies to wildly different degrees - can you name TH chapter 4s boss, as disingenious as this question is? 

On 3/22/2023 at 7:53 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

but they should present something. You should spend more time figuring out how to approach them than you do any one other enemy on the map.

Why should they present something? Where does this idea come from? Just because Kaga did it? He also put Amundsen into Vestaria Saga chapter 2 and he´s just a clorful bag of exp!

These enemies are only differentiated from the generic mook, as you call them, by an imagined abilty to lead enemy units, one we probably don´t see all that often - the only example I can think of the top of my head, is Gras army in SD prologue IV led by Jiol? The primary reason they are something, in that they have a portrait, as opposed to the generic mook, I´d wager, is effort on the game devs side.

To be clear, as I understand you, I imagine you refer to enemies such as Zephia and Marni etc. and not chapter boss number 38. But I don´t think any Fire Emblem game offers enough variety in mechanics to allow for uniquely interesting considerations for lets say 25+ chapters, before any form of paralogue, regarding the chapters boss. Slapping something like Veteran+ on an enemy, solves a problem that doesn´t exist and brings about a new and unnessecary one.

On 3/22/2023 at 7:53 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

My point is that "just have anyone pick up an effective weapon and one-shot them" is anti-climactic for the unique challenge they are clearly supposed to present and I'd rather not see that happen.

Yet using an effective weapon to defeat an important enemy lies at the heart of Fire Emblem - it started with the Falchion and it hasn´t really stopped since, has it.

Furthermore saving uses on an effective weapon to specifically use it to remove a dangerous foe is a strategic choice - the Winged Spear being probably the greatest example of this. Were we to give the relevant bosses of SDs first few chapters something like Veteran+ we would have instantly wiped out much of Caedas potential and reduced her to a mountaineering and seafaring Javelin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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