Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

There is nothing wrong with the concept of fellowship @Ottservia. It has worked well in many famous works (LOTR and older FE games) but when it is ham fisted like in Awakening, like many other JRPGs and anime, it makes the concept feel cliche. I don’t need the characters of the game constantly prattling on about the importance of bonds when I can easy discern this for myself. I really don’t need to be hammered over the head anymore with the classic “we saved the world because friendship” or else I think I’m going die from diabetes.

Cliche as it may be I still love it all the same. I honest to god don’t understand this obsession people have with gritty realism or whatever. What the hell is wrong with a light hearted story where the strength in ones bonds is used to help overcome one’s struggles?! I think we need more stories like that especially in these times. Not everything needs to be tragic grimdark. It’s no more hamfisted than characters tragically dying at the end of the story for the sake of shock value or subverting expectations. Don’t get me wrong I like me a good tragedy but there’s nothing quite like a story where characters overcome their struggles by confiding and trusting in each other. They fight on despite the odds because of something they wish to protect. One final stand to fight for the bonds they believe in. To fight to protect what they hold dear. The idea that someone will always be with you and fight by your side no matter what which fills you with the strength and determination to stand against all obstacles. That to me is a beautiful message worth telling and why I love stories like that. Humans are social creatures after all. Loneliness is something that can drive us mad if left unchecked.

Share this post


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

Cliche as it may be I still love it all the same. I honest to god don’t understand this obsession people have with gritty realism or whatever. What the hell is wrong with a light hearted story where the strength in ones bonds is used to help overcome one’s struggles?! I think we need more stories like that especially in these times. Not everything needs to be tragic grimdark. It’s no more hamfisted than characters tragically dying at the end of the story for the sake of shock value or subverting expectations. Don’t get me wrong I like me a good tragedy but there’s nothing quite like a story where characters overcome their struggles by confiding and trusting in each other. They fight on despite the odds because of something they wish to protect. One final stand to fight for the bonds they believe in. To fight to protect what they hold dear. The idea that someone will always be with you and fight by your side no matter what which fills you with the strength and determination to stand against all obstacles. That to me is a beautiful message worth telling and why I love stories like that. Humans are social creatures after all. Loneliness is something that can drive us mad if left unchecked.

Tastes differ.  I prefer something in the middle - the characters don't need to hate everyone and die for a story to be good, but having everything go roses all the time doesn't feel like something I can relate to.

Share this post


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

Cliche as it may be I still love it all the same. I honest to god don’t understand this obsession people have with gritty realism or whatever. What the hell is wrong with a light hearted story where the strength in ones bonds is used to help overcome one’s struggles?! I think we need more stories like that especially in these times. Not everything needs to be tragic grimdark. It’s no more hamfisted than characters tragically dying at the end of the story for the sake of shock value or subverting expectations. Don’t get me wrong I like me a good tragedy but there’s nothing quite like a story where characters overcome their struggles by confiding and trusting in each other. They fight on despite the odds because of something they wish to protect. One final stand to fight for the bonds they believe in. To fight to protect what they hold dear. The idea that someone will always be with you and fight by your side no matter what which fills you with the strength and determination to stand against all obstacles. That to me is a beautiful message worth telling and why I love stories like that. Humans are social creatures after all. Loneliness is something that can drive us mad if left unchecked.

 

Also another point is that it was overdone to death in Fire Emblem. So a lot of people want to see other perspectives and scenarios. 

Being gritty just for being gritty is not good writing. Being good just for being good in a shitty situation  and talking about power of friendship ignoring all political implications is also bad story writing, unless the plot recognises the consequences. 

Edited by Mylady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know how much flack I'll get for this, but in terms of animation and presentation... I quite honestly believe that Awakening is visually superior to Three Houses.

 

Yeah, I know that the characters of Three Houses have feet, but they also have far more visual hick-ups that previous games didn't have. Such as weapons disappearing and then reappearing out of thin air when a unit is healed, or how often animations are repeated when doubling despite there being an animation for a second attack. And while previous games didn't have battalions, them disappearing and reappearing at a moments notice is far more noticeable than it really should be.

This isn't even getting into comparisons between the actual battle animations. While Awakening's critical animations could be considered a step down when compared to Radiant Dawn, they didn't take their sweet time to attack like several of Three Houses do. The strength between strikes also fluctuates drastically between classes in Three Houses, as well as whether or not it looks like they actually hit their enemy. While Awakening isn't flawless in this regard, it is far more consistent, and there are also more unique animations between classes, which Three houses has far less of due to how  its weapon system works.

This isn't to say that Awakening's battle animations are perfect; it still has its fair share of stiff and slow animations, noticeable clipping, and thrown weapons reappearing out of thin air. Fates and Echoes both knock Awakening out of the park in terms of animation quality. Given the series track record when jumping between different systems, the first game on it tends to not be as polished or fancy as the later games. Neither game bucks that trend, but Three Houses introduces a few issues that previous games didn't have, instead of just having a few rough around the edges animations.

 

In terms of presentation, while both games share a similar style for the story sequences, Three Houses vastly overuses them. From supports to the monastery to big story events, they all use the exact same style and the same set of animations over and over and over again. This isn't new for videogames, and I've played plenty that use similar systems (largely because not every game has the luxury of being able to create unique animations for every character and cutscene), which just makes it all the more apparent how simple Three Houses system is. It doesn't help that the camera zooms in, zooms out, and spins around all the dang time which brings more attention to just how often certain animations are reused.

Awakening isn't free from this problem, as it also reuses a number of animations, but it is far less noticeable due to a combination of these animations only appearing during the main story chapters and because the camera doesn't move around as often as it does in Three Houses, making it harder to spot mistakes. It also has far more unique sequences, such as Robin ravenously eating bear meet while everyone else is sitting down, Sumia tripping, Maribelle being tied up (even if that one isn't that great), and Sumia punching Chrom in the face, and much more. In Three Houses, scenes like these are either hidden behind a black screen or shown via a visual trick that is oftentimes clumsily executed.

Again, Awakening is not flawless in the execution of several scenes. A lot of animations are really simple, it still has "characters stand around while commenting on something" scenes that Three Houses is plagued with, and for a game made in 2013, the animation techniques wouldn't look out of place for a game made a decade earlier, which to be fair is also a criticism shared with Three Houses. And again, Fates has more unique sequences that, while often rough around the edges, can still be praised for how some single scenes are more dynamic than Awakening was in its entirety (although oddly enough, the in-game cutscenes of Echoes are the weakest aspects of the games otherwise stellar presentation, with perhaps the exception of the first one, because Alm and Mycen sparring is pretty similar to the games stellar battle animations). When comparing the two games, however, Awakening doesn't overuse a simple system for showing the story and is far better at hiding most of the issues that said system comes with, whereas Three Houses draws attention to them. 

 

Once again, I stress that I am only talking about the animation and presentation of both games. Aspects such as character and class design as well as graphics in general are a different discussion. I do want to mention that I do not think that Three Houses is a bad looking game; it just has too many visual hic-ups for me to call it good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hawkwing Gonna agree with you there. I actually think Three Houses is one of the ugliest games in the series. So much of the game's animation feels... dead... in a way few others do. But more to the point, a lot of what the game does to make it seem bigger only makes it feel emptier to me. Yes, this is the first game to have animated talk scenes where their 3D models actually gesture and talk instead of just using portraits... but that only serves to draw attention to how little they actually do with those cutscenes, even when they're saying that they're doing things. They're still just standing and talking, same as in every game in the past. All the animated models really do is strip you of the ability to fill in the blanks with your imagination like you previously could with the portrait talks all the previous games used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpopular opinion; 

 

they should give us a no win scenario in a game. Basically “people will die. How many can you save?” (Probably by making you send 10 people to battle 100 strong units, to slow them down from reaching the main lord) 

would have to be in a non 3H style game. 3H has you invest sooo much into each unit, it would be ridiculous. But awakening you could spare 10 in one heroic blaze of glory chapter. 
 

Vestaria Saga did something similar with the map where your army is split into 3, those on top could hypothetically all die and you can still win. They exist literally just to keep enemies off your main characters. Heroic, challenging, and adds some stakes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Don't know how much flack I'll get for this, but in terms of animation and presentation... I quite honestly believe that Awakening is visually superior to Three Houses.

 

Yeah, I know that the characters of Three Houses have feet, but they also have far more visual hick-ups that previous games didn't have. Such as weapons disappearing and then reappearing out of thin air when a unit is healed, or how often animations are repeated when doubling despite there being an animation for a second attack. And while previous games didn't have battalions, them disappearing and reappearing at a moments notice is far more noticeable than it really should be.

This isn't even getting into comparisons between the actual battle animations. While Awakening's critical animations could be considered a step down when compared to Radiant Dawn, they didn't take their sweet time to attack like several of Three Houses do. The strength between strikes also fluctuates drastically between classes in Three Houses, as well as whether or not it looks like they actually hit their enemy. While Awakening isn't flawless in this regard, it is far more consistent, and there are also more unique animations between classes, which Three houses has far less of due to how  its weapon system works.

This isn't to say that Awakening's battle animations are perfect; it still has its fair share of stiff and slow animations, noticeable clipping, and thrown weapons reappearing out of thin air. Fates and Echoes both knock Awakening out of the park in terms of animation quality. Given the series track record when jumping between different systems, the first game on it tends to not be as polished or fancy as the later games. Neither game bucks that trend, but Three Houses introduces a few issues that previous games didn't have, instead of just having a few rough around the edges animations.

 

In terms of presentation, while both games share a similar style for the story sequences, Three Houses vastly overuses them. From supports to the monastery to big story events, they all use the exact same style and the same set of animations over and over and over again. This isn't new for videogames, and I've played plenty that use similar systems (largely because not every game has the luxury of being able to create unique animations for every character and cutscene), which just makes it all the more apparent how simple Three Houses system is. It doesn't help that the camera zooms in, zooms out, and spins around all the dang time which brings more attention to just how often certain animations are reused.

Awakening isn't free from this problem, as it also reuses a number of animations, but it is far less noticeable due to a combination of these animations only appearing during the main story chapters and because the camera doesn't move around as often as it does in Three Houses, making it harder to spot mistakes. It also has far more unique sequences, such as Robin ravenously eating bear meet while everyone else is sitting down, Sumia tripping, Maribelle being tied up (even if that one isn't that great), and Sumia punching Chrom in the face, and much more. In Three Houses, scenes like these are either hidden behind a black screen or shown via a visual trick that is oftentimes clumsily executed.

Again, Awakening is not flawless in the execution of several scenes. A lot of animations are really simple, it still has "characters stand around while commenting on something" scenes that Three Houses is plagued with, and for a game made in 2013, the animation techniques wouldn't look out of place for a game made a decade earlier, which to be fair is also a criticism shared with Three Houses. And again, Fates has more unique sequences that, while often rough around the edges, can still be praised for how some single scenes are more dynamic than Awakening was in its entirety (although oddly enough, the in-game cutscenes of Echoes are the weakest aspects of the games otherwise stellar presentation, with perhaps the exception of the first one, because Alm and Mycen sparring is pretty similar to the games stellar battle animations). When comparing the two games, however, Awakening doesn't overuse a simple system for showing the story and is far better at hiding most of the issues that said system comes with, whereas Three Houses draws attention to them. 

 

Once again, I stress that I am only talking about the animation and presentation of both games. Aspects such as character and class design as well as graphics in general are a different discussion. I do want to mention that I do not think that Three Houses is a bad looking game; it just has too many visual hic-ups for me to call it good.

Three Houses has actually received quite a lot of criticism for its lackluster animation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Cliche as it may be I still love it all the same. I honest to god don’t understand this obsession people have with gritty realism or whatever. What the hell is wrong with a light hearted story where the strength in ones bonds is used to help overcome one’s struggles?! I think we need more stories like that especially in these times. Not everything needs to be tragic grimdark. It’s no more hamfisted than characters tragically dying at the end of the story for the sake of shock value or subverting expectations. Don’t get me wrong I like me a good tragedy but there’s nothing quite like a story where characters overcome their struggles by confiding and trusting in each other. They fight on despite the odds because of something they wish to protect. One final stand to fight for the bonds they believe in. To fight to protect what they hold dear. The idea that someone will always be with you and fight by your side no matter what which fills you with the strength and determination to stand against all obstacles. That to me is a beautiful message worth telling and why I love stories like that. Humans are social creatures after all. Loneliness is something that can drive us mad if left unchecked.

I agree and relate with this so, so much.

Call me naive or immature or whatever, but I will forever think that the message of "friends and bonds are a good thing" is one of the most meaningful messages you can present to people. And what better way to show this than to have a physical power of friendship oust the local corrupt/evil god/king/emperor/whatever?

Yeah, I know tastes differ and different strokes for different folks and all that, but that is what I think.

An additional note on endings:
Though I will say that I also enjoy stories that do not have a happy ending. Nights of Azure 2: Bride of the New Moon being one such example, as is the infamous Conquest Ending of Hyperdimension Neptunia Re;Birth 2.
Ultimately, I think each story should have the ending that makes the most sense for it. If the story demands a non-happy ending (or an esoteric happy ending, where the outcome is still kinda good, but there is something that dulls the happiness, like the protagonist or someone else dying to make it happen), then by all means, it should have that. If a story can have a happy ending, then it should have one.

And now, for another maybe unpopular opinion on Fire Emblem just to not derail the thread too much:
I love the self-aware, lighthearted nature of many of Awakening's supports and the DLC in particular, and I would greatly enjoy an entire game in this style.

Edited by DragonFlames

Share this post


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

Call me naive or immature or whatever, but I will forever think that the message of "friends and bonds are a good thing" is one of the most meaningful messages you can present to people.

There is nothing immature about it, mate. The "complexity" of a theme is secondary to how it is presented. Star Wars is all about family, the space and the rebellion are the setting. Romeo and Juliet is a love story; and five hundred years later, we are still analysing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SynthGreen said:

Unpopular opinion; 

 

they should give us a no win scenario in a game. Basically “people will die. How many can you save?” (Probably by making you send 10 people to battle 100 strong units, to slow them down from reaching the main lord) 

would have to be in a non 3H style game. 3H has you invest sooo much into each unit, it would be ridiculous. But awakening you could spare 10 in one heroic blaze of glory chapter. 
 

Vestaria Saga did something similar with the map where your army is split into 3, those on top could hypothetically all die and you can still win. They exist literally just to keep enemies off your main characters. Heroic, challenging, and adds some stakes 

This sounds cool on paper but I think in practice it'd just be suiciding the bad/unused units. Although the idea of intentionally killing off Peri every run would be pretty funny. Also Thracia did the split your army for the sake of supporting Leif's main attacking force in a few different chapters (except you can't control who goes where).

Anyway, I've realized that I really don't like big maps. No clue if that's unpopular. Played vesteria saga at the start of the year, didnt finish because maps took so long. Played genealogy like a month ago, really didn't like it because of the map sizes. Played last promise this week, the big maps were so much worse than the small maps. Just not a fan, nothing fun about spending 20 minutes moving units across the map and invalidating so many unit types.

Edited by Boomhauer007

Share this post


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

What the hell is wrong with a light hearted story where the strength in ones bonds is used to help overcome one’s struggles?! I think we need more stories like that especially in these times. Not everything needs to be tragic grimdark.

It depends on setting really. Having a war setting then making the story go happy go lucky is something that takes me out very fast.

War stories should be tragic grimdark.

3 hours ago, SynthGreen said:

they should give us a no win scenario in a game. Basically “people will die. How many can you save?” (Probably by making you send 10 people to battle 100 strong units, to slow them down from reaching the main lord) 

Something like that could work if there's a generation split ala FE4.

As an example, imagine at the end of gen1 FE4 there's a "escape with x units objective"

Those would then survive and be there in Gen2.

Just as an example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno if this is unpopular or not, but whatever. 

I think that Roy is the most bland lord. Don't get me wrong, I still love him, but he really is. He doesn't have any flaws despite being dense to all of the ladies' affections,  he isn't all that interesting. If you asked me to name 6 personality traits, I couldn't do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CustardPudding said:

Dunno if this is unpopular or not, but whatever. 

I think that Roy is the most bland lord. Don't get me wrong, I still love him, but he really is. He doesn't have any flaws despite being dense to all of the ladies' affections,  he isn't all that interesting. If you asked me to name 6 personality traits, I couldn't do it. 

I think Eliwood is a bit more bland honestly 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SynthGreen said:

I think Eliwood is a bit more bland honestly 

 

He at least has a role to play as the straight man and/or heart in a trio dynamic. Outside of supports, Roy has few people to interact with except for Merlinus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy, and Seliph, are worse than Eliwood. Eliwood has the Helene outburst, and Hector enlivens Eliwood through their boyhood bond. Roy and Seliph are stuck in the old Lord + Tactician format and never do much within it. Leif was in the same format, but he had some personal flavor, emotion and backstory the other two did not. Sigurd was in the same format too, but for whatever lack of agency and personal charisma he lacked, he had events more interesting happening around him than his son or Roy ever did. Marth FE3 Book 1 is almost self-insert bad, so worse than Roy and Seliph, but he has an angry/seriously concerned face in Book 2 that gives him far, far more felt personality than Roy or Seliph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CustardPudding said:

I think that Roy is the most bland lord. Don't get me wrong, I still love him, but he really is. He doesn't have any flaws despite being dense to all of the ladies' affections,  he isn't all that interesting. If you asked me to name 6 personality traits, I couldn't do it. 

Smart, idealistic, clever, self-conscious, intelligent, polite, insightful.

EZPZ :P: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CustardPudding said:

He doesn't have any flaws

I don't really disagree with you about Roy being bland, (And I still like him better than Hector and Lyn) but he does have some flaws, they're just hidden deep in his supports. (He doubts himself a lot and doesn't think he can live up to expectations, and I understand that a lot.)

3 minutes ago, ping said:

Smart, idealistic, clever, self-conscious, intelligent, polite, insightful

Oh snap!

 

Also, this is certainly an unpopular opinion, the FE7 lords really aren't that great IMO; Hector's really boring other than on his route, Lyn is meh, Eliwood's good. They're fine, but of the FE games I've played, they were my least favorite main characters.

Edited by Benice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Roy, and Seliph, are worse than Eliwood. Eliwood has the Helene outburst, and Hector enlivens Eliwood through their boyhood bond. Roy and Seliph are stuck in the old Lord + Tactician format and never do much within it. Leif was in the same format, but he had some personal flavor, emotion and backstory the other two did not. Sigurd was in the same format too, but for whatever lack of agency and personal charisma he lacked, he had events more interesting happening around him than his son or Roy ever did. Marth FE3 Book 1 is almost self-insert bad, so worse than Roy and Seliph, but he has an angry/seriously concerned face in Book 2 that gives him far, far more felt personality than Roy or Seliph.

Book 2 Marth also has the blandest story though. It's like entirely exposition.

14 minutes ago, ping said:

Smart, idealistic, clever, self-conscious, intelligent, polite, insightful.

EZPZ :P: 

Come on now, smart, clever and intelligent are all the same thing. Replace two of them with curious and merciful.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self-doubting isn't very unique to Roy though. I'd say Marth, Seliph, and Leif all share in the same kind of humility. Roy is in an archetype, he was intended to be another Marth, and I don't think he was as well executed as the original when narrowly contrasted against FE3 Book 2. Not going to argue Roy vs. the other incarnations of Marth.

 

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

Book 2 Marth also has the blandest story though. It's like entirely exposition.

Dull lord and vibrant plot, or vibrant lord and dull plot?  Except, I don't see FE6 as a vibrant plot, its steam drifts off to the clouds after Chapter 8x and never rains back down. So I'll take Book 2's exposition over FE6's fizzled out can of soda. Gameplay is an entirely different story- FE6 is significantly better because of difficulty, but thats not important here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ping said:

Smart, idealistic, clever, self-conscious, intelligent, polite, insightful.

EZPZ :P: 

I suppose you got me there : P Smart and cleve are kinda the same thing, though. 

57 minutes ago, Benice said:

(He doubts himself a lot and doesn't think he can live up to expectations, and I understand that a lot.)

I suppose that's true. I never really made the time to get all of his supports except for Lilina's and Larum's, I think. I suppose that is a flaw, but I would argue it isn't exactly uncommon as Leif struggles with it as well, and Corrin (one of their 4 traits!), and Seliph. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CustardPudding said:

suppose that's true. I never really made the time to get all of his supports except for Lilina's and Larum's, I think. I suppose that is a flaw, but I would argue it isn't exactly uncommon as Leif struggles with it as well, and Corrin (one of their 4 traits!), and Seliph

No, it's not uncommon and Roy isn't the best lord in the series, I agree with you there. I personally think that Roy was a good lord who wasn't very well-written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Self-doubting isn't very unique to Roy though. I'd say Marth, Seliph, and Leif all share in the same kind of humility. Roy is in an archetype, he was intended to be another Marth, and I don't think he was as well executed as the original when narrowly contrasted against FE3 Book 2. Not going to argue Roy vs. the other incarnations of Marth.

 

Dull lord and vibrant plot, or vibrant lord and dull plot?  Except, I don't see FE6 as a vibrant plot, its steam drifts off to the clouds after Chapter 8x and never rains back down. So I'll take Book 2's exposition over FE6's fizzled out can of soda. Gameplay is an entirely different story- FE6 is significantly better because of difficulty, but thats not important here.

Is self doubting a character trait of Micaiah's? I'm not sure whether it is or isn't.

FE6 gets better towards the end once you attack Bern itself. The Etrurian and Sacaen/Ilian arcs are rather weak and forgettable though mostly because the plot is carried by Arcard and Roartz lol. 

Share this post


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

Is self doubting a character trait of Micaiah's? I'm not sure whether it is or isn't.

 

Like completely. She's massively conflicted over wether she's doing the right thing with the whole blood pact issue. And her whole relationship with Pelleas involves her worrying she'll accidentally usurp him. Not to mention her insecurities about being branded.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have been joking a little, folks ;): I like Roy and I think he's a great point-of-view character, but he's not exactly the most complex character ever written.

For the record: Smart, clever, intelligent, and insightful were all supposed to be the same, or at least same-ish thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DragonFlames said:

I love the self-aware, lighthearted nature of many of Awakening's supports and the DLC in particular, and I would greatly enjoy an entire game in this style.

Awakening is an odd one seeing that the second generation come from a future/parallel universe we’re the zombie apocalypse happens and they’re screwed, plus the fact that Grima is supposed to be some abomination wrought by alchemy if Echoes is to be believed. Grima should have been treated like one of the Taken, I.E. terrifying, hard to killed, and if you cross them your fucked.

D7D0767B-7FDA-4CB4-9B49-0D0BB81180AF.png

Edited by Wraith

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...