What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Flere210]

25 minutes ago, GlitchGabe said:

I guess what we're trying to tell you is this- Classic mode is there because it's the way it's always been. Now, I feel like Casual Mode should never have been added, but then again I don't think FE would have half of its fans if it weren't. Plus, I prefer the stress that comes when a unit is put in danger to "so I'll lose them, they'll just come back".

Kaga never intended to have Classic as we intend it. He wanted Ironman and either was not able to create an autosave on NES or did not have the time to do that. It's clear by the design of the OG Fire Emblem, wich units clearly designed as "replacements" because the intent was that if Cain die you use Matthis, not reset. 

Right now Classic seems like a relic that is there just because it always was there. Making an Ironman mode is piss easy but they are not bothering to do that and instead we have this weird situation were the games expect you to always reset and never give you replacements. 

I'd be perfectly happy whit Ironman and Casual but not Classic. Or whit the aforementioned "game over on any character death."

[Alastor15243]

1 minute ago, Flere210 said:

Kaga never intended to have Classic as we intend it. He wanted Ironman and either was not able to create an autosave on NES or did not have the time to do that. It's clear by the design of the OG Fire Emblem, wich units clearly designed as "replacements" because the intent was that if Cain die you use Matthis, not reset. 

Right now Classic seems like a relic that is there just because it always was there. Making an Ironman mode is piss easy but they are not bothering to do that and instead we have this weird situation were the games expect you to always reset and never give you replacements. 

I'd be perfectly happy whit Ironman and Casual but not Classic. Or whit the aforementioned "game over on any character death."

The issue is that those are some raaaaaaaadically extreme differences in difficulty. Cutting out classic would serve no purpose but to widen the gap between casual and hardcore. One mode where mistakes can be catastrophic, and another mode where the fail state barely exists.

I feel classic serves a fine purpose when the games are made properly. Really, of the games in the series, only Gaiden and Three Houses really seem to be made without permadeath in mind at all. Fates is the most ironman-friendly game in the series, and nearly every game before that except arguably Radiant Dawn has had a healthy spread of replacement characters. It's just not as absurdly plentiful as Shadow Dragon had because now there are higher storytelling demands for each character, so they had to make the games less of a ridiculous meatgrinder.

I maintain that treating losing a unit as a fail state, in every game, has been a perfectly fine challenge, one the games would be poorer to cut out entirely.

[Flere210]

I mostly want Ironman, i don't really want to remove classic, but i also feel that game over on death is better, if anything because is faster to reload that way. The only argument for classic over that is that you can use classic for ironman, but you would not do that if ironman is an official option.

Basically i would split classic into 2 different modes.

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

I mostly want Ironman, i don't really want to remove classic, but i also feel that game over on death is better, if anything because is faster to reload that way. The only argument for classic over that is that you can use classic for ironman, but you would not do that if ironman is an official option.

Basically i would split classic into 2 different modes.

I dunno, back when I was learning the game I got a lot of mileage out of the torturous decision of whether or not I wanted to give up all my progress on a map just because somebody less-than-crucial died last minute. My first playthrough of FE7 has SOOOOOO many deaths because of that, and I think it's a fascinating choice to have to make. Kind of becomes irrelevant when you get better at the game, but when a game is hard or when you're still learning...

[Emperor Hardin]

6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

A lot of Camus members kinda come off as terrible people. They seem more in love with the idea of them loving their country rather than them actually being in love with their country, and to maintain this self image they tend to do things they know are deeply harmful to their countries. I don't think Camus or Eldigan had any illusions about what their masters would bring on their country yet they were resolved to let it happen anyway. 

Eldigan states at one point, the death of Chagall, the last of Hezul's direct lineage, will mean the end of Agustria as well.

6 hours ago, Flere210 said:

On the topic of Camus, Xander imo is one of the least bad of them. 

Things is, father-son relationships are complicated as hell, and is very possible that a child, while knowing very well that his father is evil, just can't bring himself to act againist him, sometimes for his whole life. Story Xander and Support Xander are not different people, Support Xander is just how he is far from Garon, while Story Xander is him at his weakest emotionally.

Camus or Eldigan lack such an emotional connection whit the tyrant they serve, and Reinhard is again not too bad because of how he relate to Ishtar. And the Goddess of Thunder herself is even better than Xander because on top of her relationship whit Julius, she also has a fair reason to hate Celice army because they slaughtered her family, including the non evil people. 

The thing whit Xander is that they try to highlight his strenght and courage when he is really defined by a lack of those. That why in the end he has a complete breakdown and cannot even kill himself whitout having Corrin do the dirty work. If the gane recognezed his flaws and vulnerabilities better, he would be one of the best FE characters.

Your summary of Camus and Eldigan really isn't the case. 

Ludwik and Camus were indeed in regular contact with eachother and Camus  was one of the few to know of the wherabouts of Ludwik's children as a result of this relationship.  Ludwik was also less of a tyrant and more of a spineless coward.

Eldigan was practically raised by King Imuka and idolized the man, as such he refuses to let his lineage die off with Chagall. And its not as if Eldigan had many other options, Grannevale was trying to take over Agustria for its own imperialistic goal and easily had Agustria outgunned. Essentially Eldigan decided if Agustria was doomed either way, he may as well choose the option that honors his knightly vows to protect Agustria's royal family above all.

[Flere210]

11 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Eldigan states at one point, the death of Chagall, the last of Hezul's direct lineage, will mean the end of Agustria as well.

Your summary of Camus and Eldigan really isn't the case. 

Ludwik and Camus were indeed in regular contact with eachother and Camus  was one of the few to know of the wherabouts of Ludwik's children as a result of this relationship.  Ludwik was also less of a tyrant and more of a spineless coward.

Eldigan was practically raised by King Imuka and idolized the man, as such he refuses to let his lineage die off with Chagall. And its not as if Eldigan had many other options, Grannevale was trying to take over Agustria for its own imperialistic goal and easily had Agustria outgunned. Essentially Eldigan decided if Agustria was doomed either way, he may as well choose the option that honors his knightly vows to protect Agustria's royal family above all.

I will explain myself better.

Xander know that Garon is wrong but he also loves him, admire him and fear him at the same times and cling to memories of another times when he was not bad. Those memories are the reason he cannot betray him unless he know that he and the Garon of his childhood are literally two different people.

I was not saying that Camus and Eldigan lack emotional ties to their country or their king, just that those ties are of a different nature. I honestly does not remember Camus to well, so i will talk about Eldigan.

Eldigan does not love Chagall, does not respect nor fear him. His action are motivated by a patriotism that put the concept of Augustria above the lives of the people in it. Also while checking the script they called Chagall the eldest son, so i assume he had a brother that maybe was less shit than him. 

[Emperor Hardin]

5 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

His action are motivated by a patriotism that put the concept of Augustria above the lives of the people in it. 

What else is Eldigan supposed to do outside of run and abandon Agustria to its fate or fight for Chagall? If you're suggesting a military coup, not only would that break Eldigan's knightly vows and dishonor his dead friend, Imuka, but it'd likely tear the country apart and it'd still lead to Agustria falling to Grannevale's tyranny.

5 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Also while checking the script they called Chagall the eldest son, so i assume he had a brother that maybe was less shit than him. 

Later the script and Eldigan say Chagall is the only heir of Imuka and the royal lineage, so "Eldest son" is likely a mistranslation as that word isn't used in english for an only child.

[DragonFlames]

13 hours ago, Ottservia said:

It’s certainly a tough archetype to do well at least in regards to how FE typically chooses to present its narrative as a sort of omniscient visual novel perspective. I think the main problem with the archetype is that the narrative tries way too hard to present them as in the wrong and forgets to really make their loyalty as understandable as it needs to be. Cause I’ve seen characters like this done exceptionally well in other stories and media(Haku and Kimimaro from Naruto being the most prominent examples that come to mind) and the reason they worked is because Kishimoto took great care in really explaining why they do the things that they do in a very clear and understandable way(i.e. lots of flashbacks)

Agreed, there are characters like that that are done very well (full agreement on Haku and Kimimaro, two of the very best examples), just not in FE in my opinion for the reasons you stated.
I would like to add one more: It would help if the Camus' masters weren't as blatantly in-your-face evil people.

13 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

A lot of Camus members kinda come off as terrible people. They seem more in love with the idea of them loving their country rather than them actually being in love with their country, and to maintain this self image they tend to do things they know are deeply harmful to their countries. I don't think Camus or Eldigan had any illusions about what their masters would bring on their country yet they were resolved to let it happen anyway. 

Exactly. The way they are written in FE just makes them seem like self-centered imbeciles to me, while such characters in other games and media feel more like it's a conflict of ideals, something I really like in a story (take the God-Generals from Tales of the Abyss for example, if you know them).
Though I'll reserve judgement on Eldigan, since I haven't played FE4.

[Etrurian emperor]

11 hours ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Eldigan states at one point, the death of Chagall, the last of Hezul's direct lineage, will mean the end of Agustria as well.

Eldigan is descended of Hezul too though and could take the throne. And Chagall was doing pretty well destroying Augustria already and him trying to destroy Nodion and kill Eldigan's sister because he thought it was funny further gives Eldigan reasons just not to fight for him. 

[NekoKnight]

16 hours ago, Flere210 said:

On the topic of Camus, Xander imo is one of the least bad of them. 

Things is, father-son relationships are complicated as hell, and is very possible that a child, while knowing very well that his father is evil, just can't bring himself to act againist him, sometimes for his whole life. Story Xander and Support Xander are not different people, Support Xander is just how he is far from Garon, while Story Xander is him at his weakest emotionally.

The thing whit Xander is that they try to highlight his strenght and courage when he is really defined by a lack of those. That why in the end he has a complete breakdown and cannot even kill himself whitout having Corrin do the dirty work. If the gane recognezed his flaws and vulnerabilities better, he would be one of the best FE characters.

I think FE8 Selena would be the best one, if you want to talk about someone's inability to turn on a person they love. Selena confesses that she knows that the Vigarde she loved is no more but can't bring herself to turn against the man who saved her life and raised her out of poverty. Xander seems to be sticking his head in the sand and will only take the most damning of evidence as legitimate that there is anything wrong with Garon.

Fates' presentation of Xander was just awkward. Their intention, it would seem, was that Xander was the one who best knew Garon and was looking at him with rose colored glasses. I'm told that the JP version and JP exclusive side media painted a clearer picture of Xander being scared of Garon (ie he was a coward more than a blind fool) but the NA version shows us something different. Sometimes Xander is gobsmacked by the very notion that Garon could be evil (like in Chapter 6 in Birthright, or near endgame for Conquest). At other times he seems to be aware that Garon has changed but he feels its his duty to fight on behalf of Garon and Nohr as the crown prince (when you mortally wound him in Birthright). Sometimes he's brave enough to stand up to Garon (like his Corrin A support) and other times he folds to Garon's will with little resistance (like the massacre of Sakura's soldiers).

The reason why people talk about there being multiple Xanders is that he always acts differently for the purpose of the scene. It's hard to stick to a "Xander was weak and cowardly" interpretation when the game never calls him out for it. He never has a character moment where he realizes his faults and vows to atone for them.

 

[Emperor Hardin]

5 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Eldigan is descended of Hezul too though and could take the throne. And Chagall was doing pretty well destroying Augustria already and him trying to destroy Nodion and kill Eldigan's sister because he thought it was funny further gives Eldigan reasons just not to fight for him. 

Not without breaking his knightly vows and dishonoring Imuka, Grannevale was already destroying the country as well and a civil war against Chagall would only make Grannevale's conquest easier. As the saying goes, "better the Devil you know."

[Flere210]

6 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

I think FE8 Selena would be the best one, if you want to talk about someone's inability to turn on a person they love. Selena confesses that she knows that the Vigarde she loved is no more but can't bring herself to turn against the man who saved her life and raised her out of poverty. Xander seems to be sticking his head in the sand and will only take the most damning of evidence as legitimate that there is anything wrong with Garon.

Fates' presentation of Xander was just awkward. Their intention, it would seem, was that Xander was the one who best knew Garon and was looking at him with rose colored glasses. I'm told that the JP version and JP exclusive side media painted a clearer picture of Xander being scared of Garon (ie he was a coward more than a blind fool) but the NA version shows us something different. Sometimes Xander is gobsmacked by the very notion that Garon could be evil (like in Chapter 6 in Birthright, or near endgame for Conquest). At other times he seems to be aware that Garon has changed but he feels its his duty to fight on behalf of Garon and Nohr as the crown prince (when you mortally wound him in Birthright). Sometimes he's brave enough to stand up to Garon (like his Corrin A support) and other times he folds to Garon's will with little resistance (like the massacre of Sakura's soldiers).

The reason why people talk about there being multiple Xanders is that he always acts differently for the purpose of the scene. It's hard to stick to a "Xander was weak and cowardly" interpretation when the game never calls him out for it. He never has a character moment where he realizes his faults and vows to atone for them.

 

The entirety of conquest is doomed for not calling out the main characters on their flaw. If Corrin was aknowledged as a naive fool that only made things worse and if Azura was aknowledged as an idiot that cannot elaborate a decent plan if her life depend in it they would be less hated. I am not really defending it, and less bad imply that i will still consider him pretty bad, it's just that i also consider the whole archetype a dumpster fire. Xander is infuriating because he act like a child whit a cognitive dissonance the size of a Carrier, but the game present him like the noblest knight who ever lived. This is what, rightfully, make him more annoying than any other Camus. That and the increased scree time.

I did not considered Selena because i am not sure how much does she count, as she is not that prominent in the story. But yes, she is one of the better one.

 

 

And on the topic of Eldigan. His best option that keep Chagall Alive is to do what Arundel and the other nobles did to Edelgard's father, keeping him on the throne but deprived of any authority. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Flere210

[Emperor Hardin]

1 hour ago, Flere210 said:

And on the topic of Eldigan. His best option that keep Chagall Alive is to do what Arundel and the other nobles did to Edelgard's father, keeping him on the throne but deprived of any authority. 

That and ensure Chagall produces an heir, then educate that heir for real leadership.

[Etrurian emperor]

On the topic of the Camus archetype I probably think Ishtar is the best one. As a general rule I find the Camus who's loyal to a person far more sympathetic than the ones who are loyal to a country. The ones that are loyal to the country generally are wise enough to realize that their current actions are a detriment to their country which leaves their supposed love for their country in some doubt. The ones that are loyal to a person don't really have this problem. The end result of them failing to protect who they love can generally only end with the death of the one they love so its understandable they cannot bring themselves to go this far. 

Out of this group Ishtar is in the most sympathetic position. Xander might really love his daddy but its also really clear that his daddy doesn't even pretend to love him. Selena has a similar problem in that she loves the emperor that once was but is fully aware that the emperor she loves is gone. With Ishtar its a little different in that she doesn't just love Julius but that Julius loves her back. He's abusive in the sense that he's possessive but he doesn't behave as an evil dictator around her but as a smitten teenager who gives her flowers and buys her nice things. Ishtar might know what Julius is but he's never that way to her. When they are together they seem a pretty happy couple. 

On 10/1/2019 at 8:05 PM, Emperor Hardin said:

Not without breaking his knightly vows and dishonoring Imuka, Grannevale was already destroying the country as well and a civil war against Chagall would only make Grannevale's conquest easier. As the saying goes, "better the Devil you know."

But breaking your knightly vows or doing the right thing is essentially a choice. If Eldigan lets a cartoonishly evil tyrant drive Augustria into the ground because he's afraid of breaking his vows then that does imply he think his honor is more important than his country. 

I have some doubt Chagall would be even capable of waging a civil war. It might just as well be as simple as riding into the throne room and telling Chagall to get off that throne before he embarrasses himself and everyone else further. There was even a window for this to happen. There's a bit of a timeskip between chapter 2 and 3 with Granvelle and Augustria having a ceasefire. At this time all the anti Eldigan lords down south are dead and the cross knights are loyal. The commander down south is Sigurd who should be easily convinced not to go on the warpath while Eldigan fixes things. While Granvelle is a shady and expansionist state the aggression has always came from Augustria in their conflict. They attacked first and Sigurd remarked how they were just about to ''head home'' before Chagal initiated the battle that ended in Augustria getting conquered. This strikes me as an implication that regardless of what Granvelle wanted Sigurd's presence meant there was someone Augustria could have worked with. Alternatively he could just not have saved Chagal and ended up as king by default of being Hezul's last descendant. 

“Sir, we’ve got trouble! Shagaal has raised an army to siege us!”

Sigurd:
“Huh!? That’s ludicrous! We were just about to head home. Why attack us now? Eltshan… what in the world is going on…”

Edited October 2, 2019 by Etrurian emperor

[Emperor Hardin]

4 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

But breaking your knightly vows or doing the right thing is essentially a choice. If Eldigan lets a cartoonishly evil tyrant drive Augustria into the ground because he's afraid of breaking his vows then that does imply he think his honor is more important than his country. 

I have some doubt Chagall would be even capable of waging a civil war. It might just as well be as simple as riding into the throne room and telling Chagall to get off that throne before he embarrasses himself and everyone else further. There was even a window for this to happen. There's a bit of a timeskip between chapter 2 and 3 with Granvelle and Augustria having a ceasefire.

Grannevale was already abusing their power and preparing to use their own brand of Tyranny. Just because Chagal is cartoonishly evil, doesn't mean Grannevale's nobles aren't cartoonishly evil either.

In a half year’s time, the officials dispatched to Agustria became exceedingly reckless, and began to abuse the power they were entrusted with.
The discontent of the Agustrian people slowly began to take root.
Note the officials are Grannevale nobility sent to take control of the country by force and that the majority of the Agustrian citizenry hate their guts, leading to many siding with Chagall.

Sigurd doesn't control Grannevale and at that moment was already being set up by Grannevale's nobles to take the fall, he wouldn't have able to stop Grannevale from its imperialistic goal.

Claude:
“There are all kinds of nasty rumours cropping up in Grandbell. The most prevalent one is that you and Lord Vylon conspired to kill the prince. His Majesty’s became so overwhelmed by it all that he’s fallen terribly ill.”

4 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

At this time all the anti Eldigan lords down south are dead and the cross knights are loyal. The commander down south is Sigurd who should be easily convinced not to go on the warpath while Eldigan fixes things. While Granvelle is a shady and expansionist state the aggression has always came from Augustria in their conflict. They attacked first and Sigurd remarked how they were just about to ''head home'' before Chagal initiated the battle that ended in Augustria getting conquered. This strikes me as an implication that regardless of what Granvelle wanted Sigurd's presence meant there was someone Augustria could have worked with. Alternatively he could just not have saved Chagal and ended up as king by default of being Hezul's last descendant. 

 

That isn't the case, we see the Agustrian royal army is loyal to Chagall and all Eldigan has is the cross Knights, whilst yes they would probably win a conflict against the royal army, it would divide the country as we see Chagall still has supporters in the nation, Eldigan would be disgracing his vows as a knight, and even the Cross Knights seem just as loyal to Chagall; see them continuing to fight for Chagall after Eldigan's execution.

4 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Alternatively he could just not have saved Chagal and ended up as king by default of being Hezul's last descendant. 

Nordion's knightly vows specifically state they aren't eligible to the throne, their duty is to use the Mystletainn to protect Hezul's direct descendants, IE: the direct descendants of Hezul's eldest children who live in the royal house.

Murder by inaction would've also sullied Eldigan's honor and likely lead to him losing popularity among the country.

 

 

 

[eclipse]

On 9/30/2019 at 6:19 AM, DragonFlames said:

I feel this way purely because it's characters usually act on the principles "honor before reason" as well as "loyalty > common sense" and follow orders without question, three things I disagree with on such a level that my entire being just refuses to see those types of characters (and people) as anything but idiots, thus making it hard for me to sympathize with them.

I think a Camus could work, but it would require a very well-written story and understandable motives.  3H is a step in the right direction when it comes to quality of writing.

On 9/30/2019 at 11:40 AM, Harvey said:

I'm not saying that they should give up on Classic mode. I'm saying that its implementation is pointless with the exploits regarding grinding etc. Classic at this point just does not matter anymore because of how its really easy to make your units strong and with the turnwheel around unless they tweak it so that it stays relevant.

I always go casual because going to classic is pointless when you can like grind your units to make them so powerful that it hardly matters. The only incentive for classic to exist is to appeal to the fans and nothing else.

And Casual mode does have benefits such as mid saves and being able to use units in the next chapter. Its also less tedious especially when dealing with long maps. But I do try to play it as "classic" as possible until it comes to the point that I have no choice but to rewind time or reset the game again.

Classic mode has to be changed instead of being what it is now so that casual mode need not exist. 

 

 

On 9/30/2019 at 12:39 PM, GlitchWarrior said:

I guess what we're trying to tell you is this- Classic mode is there because it's the way it's always been. Now, I feel like Casual Mode should never have been added, but then again I don't think FE would have half of its fans if it weren't. Plus, I prefer the stress that comes when a unit is put in danger to "so I'll lose them, they'll just come back".

The Turnwheel DEFINITELY should never have been a thing though. Now that Divine Pulse (i;e basically the Turnwheel) is in 3H, the game is barely challenging. I'll probably play my first run of Echoes (because I don't have it yet) ignoring the Turnwheel altogether, because IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Actually, I don't think that's an unpopular opinion. Turnwheel ruins the challenge, we already knew that.

The two of you are more similar than you realize.  And this doesn't make me happy.

On 9/30/2019 at 1:05 PM, Alastor15243 said:

I've been concerned about that mostly from a story perspective. FE4 is such a tragic story that adding in a rewind mechanic and making it canon would have to be done very, very carefully to make sure it doesn't turn Sigurd into a distractingly hilarious idiot for not using it to save him from any of the tragedies that plague his life. And given that their solution to making bad things happen to Byleth was to make him just outright forget he can use it 80% of the time, my hopes aren't high.

My ideal best case scenario with the Turnwheel in FE4 is that they go the "prophecy, not time travel" route of Echoes, and that canonically Sigurd is just getting warnings from the future from one of the gods. But then when everything in his life goes horribly wrong anyway, this raises an uncomfortable question when Seliph gets his hands on the turnwheel: should he trust the advice of the god who saw fit to lead his father and everyone he loved to the slaughterhouse? Respect that the gods have a plan for him and follow it in faith?

Or should he smash the thing, refuse to take the traitorous god's "advice", and carve out his own destiny without the gods' "help"?

Hmmmm. . .

The ability to rewind time is rewritten into Tyrfing - but for one to invoke it, one must be worthy of wielding it.  It can't rewind very far, either, so that means Seliph can't use it to save Sigurd.  Oh, and you need Tyrfing on your person in order to use it.  Though having an unusable Tyrfing in Sigurd's inventory slots would be an interesting nerf to his character - especially if you have the option to leave it behind (meaning that it's unusable for that map).

[Ottservia]

On 10/1/2019 at 4:07 PM, Flere210 said:

The entirety of conquest is doomed for not calling out the main characters on their flaw. If Corrin was aknowledged as a naive fool that only made things worse and if Azura was aknowledged as an idiot that cannot elaborate a decent plan if her life depend in it they would be less hated. I am not really defending it, and less bad imply that i will still consider him pretty bad, it's just that i also consider the whole archetype a dumpster fire. Xander is infuriating because he act like a child whit a cognitive dissonance the size of a Carrier, but the game present him like the noblest knight who ever lived. This is what, rightfully, make him more annoying than any other Camus. That and the increased scree time.

Honestly that's really a problem with fates's story in general kind of. Cause when you look at it from a meta perspective overall, the narrative does acknowledge the fact that these characters are hypocrites or at least wrong in some way. Corrin trusts Garon in the beginning of conquest. What happens as result is that she's forced to witness the slaughtering of countless innocent people that she can't stop. Corrin trusting Zola in birthright? Well they fail to assassinate king Garon because he ratted them out. Xander choosing to stand against Corrin instead of listen to reason and join them? Well he's forced to accidentally kill his youngest sister. These characters make mistakes and the narrative punishes them for it. The real issue is that these mistakes are not really acknowledged by other characters which creates a weird dissonance between the player and the narrative. Cause y'know no one really calls Corrin out on her bullshit a lot of the time. The narrative sure does but the characters don't and that's really the main issue. It's weird if you ask me.

38 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Xander might really love his daddy but its also really clear that his daddy doesn't even pretend to love him. Selena has a similar problem in that she loves the emperor that once was but is fully aware that the emperor she loves is gone.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily bad though. Think about it from their perspective for a minute. Do you honestly know how hard it is to go against such complex feelings like love be it familial or romantic? Like speaking from personal experience, I'll say right now that it's really hard to betray someone you care about like that. It is extremely difficult even if you know that you should. Love is a very complex feeling and create a level of trust that's not so easily broken. It's not nearly as simple as just realizing you're wrong and simply snapping out of it. I mean for as terrible a person as Garon is during the events of the story, at the end of the day he's still Xander's father(well kind of). He's still the man who raised him and taught him everything he knows about what it means to be a true king. A bond like that is something you just can't easily break no matter how much other people tell you that you should. The same goes for romantic feelings in the case of Selena. To betray the man she once loved even if she knows that man is gone, to her at least that would be just heart breaking. The pain she would feel upon making a decision like that without coming to terms with those emotions would be ten times worse than the pain she's feeling now, at least I'd imagine anyway. Emotions are very complex things. Love being one of, if not, the most complex of them all so that at least makes sense to me. The real problem I feel is that that love is not communicated as well it could've been. Y'see this is where flashbacks can work wonders for storytelling.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Ottservia

[Alastor15243]

11 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Hmmmm. . .

The ability to rewind time is rewritten into Tyrfing - but for one to invoke it, one must be worthy of wielding it.  It can't rewind very far, either, so that means Seliph can't use it to save Sigurd.  Oh, and you need Tyrfing on your person in order to use it.  Though having an unusable Tyrfing in Sigurd's inventory slots would be an interesting nerf to his character - especially if you have the option to leave it behind (meaning that it's unusable for that map).

I'm a bit confused here.

Are you saying that Sigurd would have a broken Tyrfing he doesn't know how to fix until the final chapter? I'm not sure that would really solve the problem. First off, that would mean he'd still have it on him for the entirety of the conga line of tragedy that is the first generation, adding in a ton of things he should have used the turnwheel to fix. There's no way, for example, that upon finding out Eldigan has been executed (or upon killing him, if that's what you do), he wouldn't try rewinding to stop that from happening, and it would take a hell of a lot to give up on saving one of his two best friends when he has the power to rewind time. And that's to say nothing of all the other points in Gen 1 that would never have happened if Sigurd had the power to rewind time.

If you aren't saying that, and you're saying that he'd only be able to rewind when he has Tyrfing in the original game, I'm not sure that would work either. First off, he'd still have it for the big barbecue and the desert slaughter (though you could make the argument that it was far too late to save Cuan and Ethlin at least by the time he got it, given that it's impossible to save them in-game no matter how fast you are). Also, I don't think it would really make the people who like the turnwheel happy. Most reasons people like it boil down "I don't want to ever see the game over screen. I want to keep playing from the moment I screwed up until I win", and keeping it out of Sigurd and Seliph's hands for more than 80% of the game probably wouldn't satisfy anyone, the people who like it or the people who don't want it to be a non-togglable and fully-canon game mechanic.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Alastor15243

[Harvey]

On 9/30/2019 at 6:23 PM, Alastor15243 said:

The issue is that those are some raaaaaaaadically extreme differences in difficulty. Cutting out classic would serve no purpose but to widen the gap between casual and hardcore. One mode where mistakes can be catastrophic, and another mode where the fail state barely exists.

I feel classic serves a fine purpose when the games are made properly. Really, of the games in the series, only Gaiden and Three Houses really seem to be made without permadeath in mind at all. Fates is the most ironman-friendly game in the series, and nearly every game before that except arguably Radiant Dawn has had a healthy spread of replacement characters. It's just not as absurdly plentiful as Shadow Dragon had because now there are higher storytelling demands for each character, so they had to make the games less of a ridiculous meatgrinder.

I maintain that treating losing a unit as a fail state, in every game, has been a perfectly fine challenge, one the games would be poorer to cut out entirely.

The thing is, Fire emblem is now catering to a wider demographic and Nintendo now considers it a major IP. The fact that Birthright sold higher than Conquest alone proves it as sad as it is. Because believe me when I say this, despite going casual mode, I enjoyed Conquest better than the other two not because of it having a good challenge but because it is close to the depth of that in Thracia 776 in terms of map design.

But it is what it is. I am fine if Nintendo wants to still implement classic mode as a tradition to the series. I just feel like I said before that it needs some form of tweaking inorder to like make sense to gamers in general.

 

[Alastor15243]

1 minute ago, Harvey said:

But it is what it is. I am fine if Nintendo wants to still implement classic mode as a tradition to the series. I just feel like I said before that it needs some form of tweaking inorder to like make sense to gamers in general.

Elaborate. This is where you lost me last time, as I said. What kinds of changes do you mean?

[Acacia Sgt]

I'd rather any Genealogy remake to not have turn rewinding integrated into the story.

Also, having it on Tryfing just invites too many questions. Now you'd have to invent why Vyron didn't used it to avoid Kurth getting killed, among the other stuff already brought that could be avoided.

[Icelerate]

19 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I'd rather any Genealogy remake to not have turn rewinding integrated into the story.

 

FE4 already allows you to save every turn. I highly doubt a turn wheel mechanic is needed. 

[Acacia Sgt]

8 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

FE4 already allows you to save every turn. I highly doubt a turn wheel mechanic is needed. 

It all depends if they keep that.

Admitedly, I haven't the chance to play SoV nor 3H. Can you save mid-chapter in addition to having their rewind mechanic? It's not like they can't put both, even then.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Acacia Sgt

[Icelerate]

Just now, Acacia Sgt said:

It all depends if they keep that.

Admitedly, I haven't the chance to play SoV nor 3H. Can you save mid-chapter in addition to having their rewind mechanic?

Haven't played them but I have watched their playthroughs. You can't do that. 

What are your bets? Turnwheel or not? Saving each turn or not? I'm going with no turn wheel but keeping the save. 

[Acacia Sgt]

6 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

What are your bets? Turnwheel or not? Saving each turn or not? I'm going with no turn wheel but keeping the save. 

If they keep saving, it might be like in RD or Awakening. Save whenever you want during Player Phase.