Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Benice said:

Rolf X Mist (again)  because it would be too adorable

Tormod and Sanaki just because they're basically the only people of their age

Those two pairings really are not unpopular; a lot of people (especially on this site) seem to like those two pairings; myself included. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought people would be mad for the Tormod x Sanaki thing

Sanaki would, anyways

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure how this opinion is received here (because I like never see anyone talk about Sacred Stones on this website for some reason) but I think Ephraim is quite a good lord and seeing someone call him a Mary Sue* or whatnot it really makes me do a double check if we’re playing the same game, or maybe you just played Eirika route. I think the point of Ephraim is that he is actually really good at fighting warfare, like too good at it. That’s why he can beat Grado quickly but having it work in the story is because the story isn’t about beating a kingdom you’re fighting. 

Ephraim is aware his nature is not kingly and he’s fearful of not being an adequate King for his country...

Hold on... isn’t that the same as Lyon? Someone terrified of becoming King the story shows how they go down different alleys reflecting these large weights they have? And how Lyon and Ephraim both respected each other for the traits the other had really driving home their idea of not feeling complete as individuals?

I mean honestly if Sacred Stones didn’t have someone like Lyon as his villain but a character and Ephraim was a character who never reflected or worried about what he was supposed to do and the game ended after beating Grado+a secret enemy with little build up, he would be a terrible lord. Sacred Stones is not about the war between countries though, it’s about the Twins and Lyon.

*Also just don’t use this word in discussion, it just kills arguments. I’m sure I’ve thrown that word around for Alm and kinda want to take it back. 

Also to stay hip with 3H Ferdinand and Dorothea’s A Support is really stupid, and they could have done literally anything else to explain why Dorothea hates him instead of looking at her bathing when he was a child having nothing to do with nobles or their nature. Like seriously are we just supposed to believe this lingering resentment existed for almost a decade because of this? It really undermines the good C and B support build up Bee metaphor because staring at a girl in fountain has absolutely nothing to do with a Bee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SubwayBossEmmett said:

*Also just don’t use this word in discussion, it just kills arguments. I’m sure I’ve thrown that word around for Alm and kinda want to take it back.  

Also to stay hip with 3H Ferdinand and Dorothea’s A Support is really stupid, and they could have done literally anything else to explain why Dorothea hates him instead of looking at her bathing when he was a child having nothing to do with nobles or their nature. Like seriously are we just supposed to believe this lingering resentment existed for almost a decade because of this? It really undermines the good C and B support build up Bee metaphor because staring at a girl in fountain has absolutely nothing to do with a Bee

It seems this is an unpopular opinion so I'll say it. "Mary Sue" shouldn't be maligned as a invalid point of criticism. I understand some of the criticisms; the term has meant different things to different people and some misuse the term to slam characters they don't like whether or not the accusation has any merit. I view it as a short-hand for characters who are overly loved, skilled or centralize a plot on them without good reason. Corrin is a Mary Sue because they are adored or hated by the entire cast for no reason other than to be the most important person in the narrative. Alm is a Mary Sue because he is promoted to the position of the leader for dubious reasons and always succeeds, no matter how reckless or inexperienced he is. He always makes the right decisions, which is bad for a story where he's supposed to mirror Celica instead of being better than her in every way. It's fine if you want to disagree with this take on the characters but to disregard the argument entirely because of the term "Mary Sue" is to be the real killer of a discussion.

I think you should check out the Dorothea x Ferdinand support again. Dorothea hates him because she thinks he's like every other noble who abused or ignored her when she was a street urchin but switched over to adoration when she was the hot thing in society. She remembers Ferdinand as another person who showed her scorn when she was down on her luck but was all smiles after she made something of herself. Dorothea has a lot of baggage concerning other nobles that she pinned on Ferdinand and she tells him that in the support. Staring at a girl in a fountain isn't the bee analogy, she's saying she thought he was someone who only gravitates to what's currently beautiful. She thought he was fake but the A support resolves that conflict when Ferdinand said he's always thought she was beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Benice said:

I thought people would be mad for the Tormod x Sanaki thing

I've heard it come up a lot. Despite the game foolishly not giving them supports they are actually a really logical pairing. They are both around the same age, both brats, both devoted to freeing Laguz and they are both from Begnion. RD even mentions Tormod ended up working for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

It seems this is an unpopular opinion so I'll say it. "Mary Sue" shouldn't be maligned as a invalid point of criticism. I understand some of the criticisms; the term has meant different things to different people and some misuse the term to slam characters they don't like whether or not the accusation has any merit. I view it as a short-hand for characters who are overly loved, skilled or centralize a plot on them without good reason. Corrin is a Mary Sue because they are adored or hated by the entire cast for no reason other than to be the most important person in the narrative. Alm is a Mary Sue because he is promoted to the position of the leader for dubious reasons and always succeeds, no matter how reckless or inexperienced he is. He always makes the right decisions, which is bad for a story where he's supposed to mirror Celica instead of being better than her in every way. It's fine if you want to disagree with this take on the characters but to disregard the argument entirely because of the term "Mary Sue" is to be the real killer of a discussion.

Agreed. Mary Sue/Gary Stu is not inherently an invalid criticism just because they sometimes get misused. Perhaps part of the reason for the misuse is that it can sometimes be hard to describe; sometimes I try to describe it and people ask, "Isn't that just a protagonist?" 

The classic symptoms of a Mary Sue/Gary Stu is that the entire plot gets wrapped and distorted around them, and that gratification of the character take precedence over actually writing/exploring/developing the character. Alm and Corrin have both of these in spades.

A Mary Sue/Gary Stu can still have flaws/limitations, but if the story never actually treats them like flaws or limitations, then that's another indication of the two main symptoms. Corrin has his naivete and inexperience; neither of which are actually used by the plot or treated by the characters as weaknesses. Similarly, Alm has his recklessness, but it's never considered a problem by the plot. 

There is so much more I could say on the matter, but I mainly just wanted to talk about the definition of a Mary Sue/Gary Stu, not Alm and Corrin, so I'll stop here. 

 

12 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

RD, the Destroyer of Ships

I'm not even someone who ships characters, and I agree. So much waste of character dynamics that they had been building up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, i just use Mary Sue for a character that share many Mary Sue traits even if they have Flaws. For example, for me Daenerys is a Mary Sue.

Edited by Flere210

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

A Mary Sue/Gary Stu can still have flaws/limitations, but if the story never actually treats them like flaws or limitations, then that's another indication of the two main symptoms. Corrin has his naivete and inexperience; neither of which are actually used by the plot or treated by the characters as weaknesses. Similarly, Alm has his recklessness, but it's never considered a problem by the plot. 

Alm I agree but Corrin is a weird case in this regard because the story does indeed treat Corrin’s naivete as a legitimate character flaw(well Birthright anyway conquest is a bit wonkier with it). Every time in Birthright when Corrin chooses to blindly trust someone, anyone, it ends up backfiring in some way. Zola? He rats them out so they fail to Assassinate Garon. Flora? Well she stabs him in the back and kills herself out of immense grief. Each time Corrin’s trusting nature is taken advantage of and they end up making mistakes because of it. The thing is none of the characters really call them out for it nor does Corrin acknowledge these flaws themselves(which is actually kind of the point of BR’s story) and this kinda creates a weird dissonance between the player and the characters  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Each time Corrin’s trusting nature is taken advantage of and they end up making mistakes because of it. The thing is none of the characters really call them out for it nor does Corrin acknowledge these flaws themselves(which is actually kind of the point of BR’s story) and this kinda creates a weird dissonance between the player and the characters  

Oh its even worse than that. After the whole Anthony mess the siblings all acknowledge Corrin is hopelessly naive but collectively decide that its cute and that Corrin doesn't need to change because they'll be there to clean up the mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Oh its even worse than that. After the whole Anthony mess the siblings all acknowledge Corrin is hopelessly naive but collectively decide that its cute and that Corrin doesn't need to change because they'll be there to clean up the mess. 

Yeah the anthony scenario is a weird outlier in this. If something like that happened in BR I would honestly have no issue with it because the entire point is that Corrin makes the wrong choice but they never realize that and they’re siblings not calling them out for their bullshit lends credence to that. In Rev, however, Corrin should be able to acknowledge their own mistakes cause this is the right path so Corrin should have outgrown the mistakes they made along BR and CQ but here it shows they kind of didn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Agreed. Mary Sue/Gary Stu is not inherently an invalid criticism just because they sometimes get misused. Perhaps part of the reason for the misuse is that it can sometimes be hard to describe; sometimes I try to describe it and people ask, "Isn't that just a protagonist?" 

It can be a pretty difficult thing to convey all the nuances of what makes a character a Mary Sue. One common trait that people list when giving the definition is that the character never fails or suffers and people will use that to dismiss an accusation against a character. "Corrin and Alm can't be Mary Sues! They both lose loved ones and are powerless in certain cases to prevent a tragedy!" to which I would counter "the tragedies are never their fault" or worse "the tragedy IS their fault but no one blames them".

Or perhaps people would say "Eliwood doesn't have any flaws, isn't he a Mary Sue?" to which I'd say no because while he doesn't have any flaws to criticize, he's never unbelievable or valued more highly than one would expect.
 

29 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Honestly, i just use Mary Sue for a character that share many Mary Sue traits even if they have Flaws. For example, for me Daenerys is a Mary Sue

Discussing Mary Sue traits is another, perhaps less controversial, way to approach the discussion of characters. For example, I think Micaiah has a large number of traits (special ability/hair color/heritage/well liked) that would fit a Mary Sue but when you consider how they fit into the narrative, they don't make her a Mary Sue character. She isn't universally loved, her powers help but don't define her character and her heritage is only important for the epilogue, and I'd say she earned it.

In regards to Daenerys, I considered her a Mary Sue for a good chunk of the story. Many of her early victories were just good fortune falling in her lap and while she does suffer hardship, her successes had more to do with luck and her enemies being dumb than her own abilities. My opinion changed after she got to Mereen and her limitations as a ruler were explored more thoroughly. I still have more issues with her character but she became more rounded, as most GoT characters do.

5 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Oh its even worse than that. After the whole Anthony mess the siblings all acknowledge Corrin is hopelessly naive but collectively decide that its cute and that Corrin doesn't need to change because they'll be there to clean up the mess. 

I really hope that scene lives on in infamy as one of the lowest points in the series; where a protagonist is acknowledged to have a flaw but the story says that their purity mustn't be sacrificed for the sake of personal growth.

Edited by NekoKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Discussing Mary Sue traits is another, perhaps less controversial, way to approach the discussion of characters. For example, I think Micaiah has a large number of traits (special ability/hair color/heritage/well liked) that would fit a Mary Sue but when you consider how they fit into the narrative, they don't make her a Mary Sue character. She isn't universally loved, her powers help but don't define her character and her heritage is only important for the epilogue, and I'd say she earned it.

Agreed; I definitely would not consider Micaiah a Mary Sue. Micaiah is a Joan-of-Arc character done well for the most part. 

 

56 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

It can be a pretty difficult thing to convey all the nuances of what makes a character a Mary Sue. One common trait that people list when giving the definition is that the character never fails or suffers and people will use that to dismiss an accusation against a character. "Corrin and Alm can't be Mary Sues! They both lose loved ones and are powerless in certain cases to prevent a tragedy!" to which I would counter "the tragedies are never their fault" or worse "the tragedy IS their fault but no one blames them".

Oh yeah; I hear you. I think one reason is that were defining it essentially by its list of symptoms, and because those things can sometimes be found elsewhere or are worded vaguely enough that people can easily misinterpret the point, that causes confusion. That's definitely a good example. Another warning sign (not proof, but a warning sign) would be a character that never actually struggles; everything comes easily to them. But then one might get people saying, "Saitama's (from One-Punch Man; great show) not a Mary Sue and he never struggles" to which I would say that he does indeed struggle: he struggles with making enough money to have food on his plate, he struggles with the boredom and depression that has come from being way too OP, and he struggles with rising through the hero ranks and getting recognition for what he's done. Beating monsters is the only thing that does come easily for him, and it comes too easily. 

By contrast, with Alm, what came at great physical, mental or personal difficulty/struggle? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Oh yeah; I hear you. I think one reason is that were defining it essentially by its list of symptoms, and because those things can sometimes be found elsewhere or are worded vaguely enough that people can easily misinterpret the point, that causes confusion. That's definitely a good example. Another warning sign (not proof, but a warning sign) would be a character that never actually struggles; everything comes easily to them. But then one might get people saying, "Saitama's (from One-Punch Man; great show) not a Mary Sue and he never struggles" to which I would say that he does indeed struggle: he struggles with making enough money to have food on his plate, he struggles with the boredom and depression that has come from being way too OP, and he struggles with rising through the hero ranks and getting recognition for what he's done. Beating monsters is the only thing that does come easily for him, and it comes too easily. 

 By contrast, with Alm, what came at great physical, mental or personal difficulty/struggle? 

Personally how I like to define character struggle is in terms of what the story is about. Essentially what is the character supposed to struggle with? Is that struggle made clear to the audience? 

Like Saitama’s struggle is a combination of apathy and failing to gain acknowledgement for what he does which is due to a number of factors surrounding his character and the world he lives in. Him slowly learning to come to terms with all that and learn what it truly means to sacrifice in order to be a true hero is what drives the core conflicts of the story forward and what makes that story so compelling.

Alm in contrast is supposed to struggle with an obsession with strength and recklessness but the story never makes a point to push that as a core conflict. We never see Alm show any of those traits at all over the course of the story which makes any conflict that comes as a result of the story trying to execute on that premise extremely jarring and meaningless as a result. Which is why SoV’s story just doesn’t work because the way the characters are written are completely at odds with the themes and ideas that the story wants to explore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure Alm was meant to deal with that? His upbringing means he was never going to blinding follow the Rigelian doctrine. How could he, when he spent almost all his life in Zofia?

Maybe that's why someoe like Berkut was created. Because he could embrace that role better than Alm. Alm was never a candidate to that. It just makes no sense. Well, don't know if this line of thinking is popular or unpopular... though looking at discussions here... might as well be unpopular. Who knows.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Oh its even worse than that. After the whole Anthony mess the siblings all acknowledge Corrin is hopelessly naive but collectively decide that its cute and that Corrin doesn't need to change because they'll be there to clean up the mess.  

To be fair Rev is mega ultra terrible and no one should acknowledge it's existence unless it is to make fun of it

3 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

It seems this is an unpopular opinion so I'll say it. "Mary Sue" shouldn't be maligned as a invalid point of criticism. I understand some of the criticisms; the term has meant different things to different people and some misuse the term to slam characters they don't like whether or not the accusation has any merit. I view it as a short-hand for characters who are overly loved, skilled or centralize a plot on them without good reason. Corrin is a Mary Sue because they are adored or hated by the entire cast for no reason other than to be the most important person in the narrative. Alm is a Mary Sue because he is promoted to the position of the leader for dubious reasons and always succeeds, no matter how reckless or inexperienced he is. He always makes the right decisions, which is bad for a story where he's supposed to mirror Celica instead of being better than her in every way. It's fine if you want to disagree with this take on the characters but to disregard the argument entirely because of the term "Mary Sue" is to be the real killer of a discussion.

"It's fine if you want to disagree with this take on the characters but to disregard the argument entirely because of the term "Mary Sue" is to be the real killer of a discussion." This is basically the gist of why I don't like using the term in discussion anymore because it devolves everything into defining what a Mary Sue. It's basically the ultimate denouement of a character in discussion.

I agree that "characters who are overly loved, skilled or centralize a plot on them without good reason" are bad for stories (and I still think the same for Alm and Corrin most of the time) but to use the existing Mary Sue term just cheapens the entire argument for people because it's such a different term to each person. I just think for the sake of discussions it's just better to avoid using the term so you can actually discuss the character.

 

3 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

I think you should check out the Dorothea x Ferdinand support again. Dorothea hates him because she thinks he's like every other noble who abused or ignored her when she was a street urchin but switched over to adoration when she was the hot thing in society. She remembers Ferdinand as another person who showed her scorn when she was down on her luck but was all smiles after she made something of herself. Dorothea has a lot of baggage concerning other nobles that she pinned on Ferdinand and she tells him that in the support. Staring at a girl in a fountain isn't the bee analogy, she's saying she thought he was someone who only gravitates to what's currently beautiful. She thought he was fake but the A support resolves that conflict when Ferdinand said he's always thought she was beautiful.

I actually really like their C and B support, I just think the literal action that Dorothea hates him for is one of the worst they could have thought off. The act of a boy watching a girl bathe has nothing to do with being a commoner or a noble, it's just a boy staring at a girl.

It really undermines the real resentment Dorothea has for him, because she has a lot of reasons to hate Nobles even just within their A support and they just do something so off tangent to anything related to nobility. Which Dorothea literally lists reasons why she does hate nobles in general.

>"I could've died. Then the right person overheard me singing. And suddenly I was in the opera. I was a songstress. And my goodness...did the nobles like me. The people who used to spit on me and call me an urchin? They praised my voice and my beauty. A nobleman who had once kicked me, gave me the most gorgeous shoes. I almost asked if it was a joke."
 

I actually was disagreeing with someone about this a bit ago and came up with two similar situations that really would still fit the general structure of the A support without making Dorothea look petty and still reflect what type of person Ferdinand is. 

1. What if it was just Ferdinand as a child finding Dorothea covered in filthy in an alleyway and ran away leading to Dorothea to believe he wanted nothing to do with her and poor people alike when in reality it was him trying to find help for someone clearly in need of it, but when he returned with an adult/money she was gone.

2. Have Ferdinand shout for help near Dorothea where a miscommunication between them arises where he is shouting for someone to help her get taken care of while she believes he is shouting for someone to remove her from his sight. I believe this would have easily emphasized the type of person Ferdinand is in the support without undermining Dorothea's resentment of nobles.

I really like the second idea it came up with because it would heavily contrast the ideas of optimism and cynicism these two have towards nobility in general from the same action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Are you sure Alm was meant to deal with that? His upbringing means he was never going to blinding follow the Rigelian doctrine. How could he, when he spent almost all his life in Zofia?

 Maybe that's why someoe like Berkut was created. Because he could embrace that role better than Alm. Alm was never a candidate to that. It just makes no sense. Well, don't know if this line of thinking is popular or unpopular... though looking at discussions here... might as well be unpopular. Who knows.

To quote the man himself after he had rescued Celica’s soul

Spoiler

Alm: Don’t apologize. Just know that I need you, all right? Without your wisdom, all I know how to do is fight whatever’s in front of me. So please… Will you fight with me? Believe in me. Believe in US. Believe in our combined strength!

The problem with this statement is that this never happens nor does the narrative ever make this a major point of conflict for his character so any conflict arising from this is going to mean absolutely nothing to the audience. He doesn’t need Celica. When was that ever made apparent throughout the entirety of the story? Never because Alm does fine on his own. He is perfectly capable of holding himself back without her by his side. The same cannot be said when it comes to Celica and that there lies the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Are you sure Alm was meant to deal with that? His upbringing means he was never going to blinding follow the Rigelian doctrine. How could he, when he spent almost all his life in Zofia?

The game was literally advertised with statements such as, "The way of the sword or the way of the heart"; indicating a duality in Alm's path vs Celica's; Alm's being the sword path (built on Alm's philosophy being taking action and thinking of the battles ahead) and Celica's being the heart path (built on the idea of looking for Mila to help fix the wider problems).

I made a reply on this thread that went into a lot more detail about the struggles and themes that the game presented itself as exploring were poorly handled and overshadowed by more tacked-on story elements. I'll quote them now so you don't have to flip through pages:

Quote

By contrast, with Shadows of Valentia, it feels like the team was given Fire Emblem Gaiden, told to make a remake that overhauls/updates the game, and they couldn't agree on how to do so. All the additions to the story like Berkut, Ferdinand, Conrad and Rinea feel extremely tacked-on, the script is a mishmash of areas that were given an overhaul and areas that were left barebones, the dungeons and villages get an overhaul but the level design goes completely unchanged to the game's detriment, and characters behave in ways that go against the core themes and parallelism the story was trying to get across:

  • Alm being a generic Marth lord that gets treated as perfect by the cast when his arc is supposed to be taking-action leading to thinking-only-of-the-next-battle leading to him killing his father and reconciling with Celica
  • Emperor Rudolf coming across like a kind-hearted idiot when he was supposed to be a well-intentioned extremist and a warning to Alm of what he'd become if not for Celica
  • Jedah behaving like a moustache-twirling villain when he's supposed to be a fanatic and a warning to Celica of what she'd become if not for Alm

Note that all of those are the result of changes and additions they made to each character's dialogue and arc, because the original script was very barebones. 

Quote

As for how those interpretations are what they were going for, "supposed to be" was definitely the wrong way to phrase it. I was trying to get across that the story seems in-conflict about what they wanted these characters to be; what they wanted them to do, and I figure this probably a result of the writing team being conflicted on those very things. 

As for how I think those things I mislabeled as "supposed to be" were what at least some of the writers may have been trying to go for, I mainly get that from looking at particular aspects of the story that highlight the central themes:

There's an obvious emphasis on duality, dual perspectives, and not letting different viewpoints divide. This is obvious from Mila and Duma, as well as scenes like the opening where Alm and Celica talk about how Mila and Duma clashed over ideology and they promise never to let anything come between them. The game was also heavily marketed as "The way of the sword, or the way of the heart" and highlighting Alm being all about taking action and Celica being about investigating what's going on and finding Mila. Naturally, one would think that the two protagonists and their arcs are being set up to reflect this. Celica's is, but Alm's isn't. 

Similarly, for Rudolf, we get things like the "But in their quest for power, the Rigelians had let their hearts grow cold and numb to all kindness" line over a picture of Rudolf at the very beginning cinematic that's meant to establish the central premise of the story. Look at how Rudolf is set up: the powerful emperor of the militaristic and Darwinist Rigelian Empire; the central opponent to Alm before the big twist; the man taking action to make sure the continent can go on without Mila and Duma. He strongly parallels Alm, or at least what Alm was set up to be. But then, after the plot twist, Rudolf's treated like an unsung hero whose plan was the only way it could happen.

And, for Jedah, between all the cackling and moustache-twirling, we get lines like these: 

Alm: Stand down, Jedah! Your schemes end here and now. Prepare to pay for your atrocities!

Jedah: Rudolf’s worthless spawn… You’re both disgusting heretics. How dare you wish harm on Duma!

Celica: Open your eyes, Jedah. No matter how it pains you, you must see the truth. Duma’s gone mad—he brings only suffering to his people now. This is the divine dragons’ fate.

Jedah: Silence, girl! You know nothing of what you speak. And if suffering is the gods’ will, what of it? Without their strength at its foundation, Valentia cannot sustain life.

It's as if they have two different ideas on what they want Jedah to be: one being a moustache-twirling villain, and the other being a fanatic whose actions stem from a belief that Valentia needs Duma no matter how mad he becomes. As for him being a villainous foil to Celica, well there's the fact that he mainly opposes Celica; not really bothering with Alm until Act 5, and the fact that his goals and dependency on Duma mirror Celica's goals and dependency on Mila. 

 

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Personally how I like to define character struggle is in terms of what the story is about. Essentially what is the character supposed to struggle with? Is that struggle made clear to the audience? 

Like Saitama’s struggle is a combination of apathy and failing to gain acknowledgement for what he does which is due to a number of factors surrounding his character and the world he lives in. Him slowly learning to come to terms with all that and learn what it truly means to sacrifice in order to be a true hero is what drives the core conflicts of the story forward and what makes that story so compelling.

Alm in contrast is supposed to struggle with an obsession with strength and recklessness but the story never makes a point to push that as a core conflict. We never see Alm show any of those traits at all over the course of the story which makes any conflict that comes as a result of the story trying to execute on that premise extremely jarring and meaningless as a result. Which is why SoV’s story just doesn’t work because the way the characters are written are completely at odds with the themes and ideas that the story wants to explore.

Yes; thank you. That's basically what I was trying to say, although I wouldn't necessarily say, "What the story is about" so much as something like, "The character's plot" or "the character's arc", since even a protagonist is only a piece of the story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Fire emblem three houses, along with fe7, 8, 11, 13, and birthright are the worst games in the series. Not because they are outright poor in quality, but because they are neither good nor bad. They have nothing to keep you from playing other games that get a reaction out of you. 

Ex: I would rather listen to crappy voice acting than mediocre voice acting. I think there is something to be gained from watching, playing, or listening to something that's outright bad.

 

>Fe3h has poor stories over all, and even the 'best' story of blue lions is plagued with horrible pace and mediocre execution.

 

>Fe3h should've allowed you to play three sides of the same linear story. I think it could do alot with that idea.

 

>Edelgarde's story is unneeded and I'd be okay if they didn't allow you to side with her.

 

>Edelgarde is a boring character that is like 3 different characters mashed together. Support/cutesy Edelgarde, sympathetic Edelgarde, and conquerer Edelgarde. All sides are equally boring.

>Fe5 is the best fire emblem game.

 

>I can't find a reason to play 9 and 10. They both look boring and I don't know why I would play it when I can play something else.

 

 

>Fe7 has no reason to exist

 

>Fe8's story is as bland as its gameplay

 

>Leif isn't one of the worst lords, but in fact, he is really good for his avoid and leadership stars.

 

>I wish Fe5 could be the next echoes, but I do think fe4 deserves the spot because fe5 is the midquel.

 

That's all I can think of.

Edited by Kai the glove eating night
Giving an example as to why I think they are the worst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kai the glove eating night said:

>Fire emblem three houses, along with fe7, 8, 11, 13, and birthright are the worst games in the series. Not because they are outright poor in quality, but because they are neither good nor bad. They have nothing to keep you from playing other games that get a reaction out of you. 

>I can't find a reason to play 9 and 10. They both look boring and I don't know why I would play it when I can play something else. 

 

I'm not one to call people's opinions in these bait but I feel like the way that you call a bunch of games middling and not worth playing, but 5 lines later say 2 more games aren't worth playing and act like they're separate categories.

It makes this post feel artificially made to make people mad.

Also FE7 exists just to reuse a lot of things from FE6 for a quick game to be maid in response to the growing popularity of Roy obviously

edit: not to mention basically no one who actually enjoys 4/5 want remakes of the game for fear of OCs and IS writing. Conrad/Faye are easily among the worst characters in SoV and they're the new people

Edited by SubwayBossEmmett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SubwayBossEmmett said:

I'm not one to call people's opinions in these bait but I feel like the way that you call a bunch of games middling and not worth playing, but 5 lines later say 2 more games aren't worth playing and act like they're separate categories.

It makes this post feel artificially made to make people mad.

Also FE7 exists just to reuse a lot of things from FE6 for a quick game to be maid in response to the growing popularity of Roy obviously

edit: not to mention basically no one who actually enjoys 4/5 want remakes of the game for fear of OCs and IS writing. Conrad/Faye are easily among the worst characters in SoV and they're the new people

I made those different paragraph's because I have played 7,8,11,13, birthright, and three houses. I won't say I would recommend them, as I have played them and think they are just okay. Which is why I think they are the worst, because(in my eyes) you can get much more bang for your buck if you played something that was certifiably bad. It gets something out of you that I consider fun. Like crappy voice acting as compared to mediocre voice acting.

 

I can't recommend nor tell others not to play 9 or 10 because I have not played. I just can't find a reason to myself.

 

Hope that clears it up for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points for the other games you call mediocre make sense [even if I disagree with most of the games you categorized as such], as I have held the opinion that being truly mediocre is among the worst things you can be as well, but I don't understand why you can't just jump into a game within a series you like and clearly have played a lot of with 9 or 10. I haven't personally played them yet but I want to, 10 in particular seems to tell a unique story for the series in the earlier parts.

Edited by SubwayBossEmmett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While 3H class system has many flaw, the fact that certain characters lack a clear class pact is not one of them.

Edelgard has dark magic so that Gremory Edelgard or Dark knight Edelgard can be a thing for example. Many characters are basically shoeshorned in a single class because their proficiencies are geared toward that and that alone. 

The only character whit really awkard proficiencies is Catherine's gauntlet, but imo the reasoning was that they really wanted to lock her to swords, she had to be proficient in more than one thing, and authority did not fit her well. 

Edited by Flere210

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kai the glove eating night said:

I can't find a reason to play 9 and 10. They both look boring and I don't know why I would play it when I can play something else.

Really? No reason? Considering all your complaints about the stories in other FE games, particularly Three Houses, and your love of bad voice acting, you would absolutely love FE9.

  • Path of Radiance's story is fairly straightforward, but very refined while having a few good twists and turns. The characters are great, the supports are great, the main story is great, and the worldbuilding is one of the best (if not the best) in FE.
  • It has good voice acting and bad voice acting in cutscenes; no in-between. 
  • Ike is one of the best (if not the best) Fe protagonist. 
  • The characters are fairly well-balanced; every character except Sothe can continue to be very useful. 
  • The map design is well-constructed, and there is plenty of variety in the victory conditions. 
  • The gameplay and story overall are far from boring. In fact, Path of Radiance is the FE game I've replayed the most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Benice said:

Roy and Larum is Roy's best  pairing in  sword of seals

Lethe and Ranulf should have married ending

Rolf X Mist (again)  because it would be too adorable

Tormod and Sanaki just because they're baisically the only peoplelf their age

Amelia is worth using in SS just so she can marry Franzl

Oliver and Ike should have married ending

I agree with all of these! 

Share this post


Link to post
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...