What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, twilitfalchion said:

I actually think Corrin is one of the better lords in the series. I find them being a very sensitive, compassionate person who stands for their convictions to be very admirable. They're a lot like Lyn in that way, in my mind at least.

Personally I find Corrin to be more similar to Ike if anything cause they share similar roles in their respective narratives though I've yet to play FE7 so yeah.

 

18 minutes ago, Rose482 said:

My unpopular opinion is that IS handles female lords a lot better than most people give them credit for.

My main issue with a lot of the female lords is that they're just kinda overshadowed a lot of the time. Like I don't think it's too bad in sacred stones but it's really bad in SoV like really bad to the point where it actually takes away a lot from Celica's character arc.

[Troykv]

26 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Personally I find Corrin to be more similar to Ike if anything cause they share similar roles in their respective narratives though I've yet to play FE7 so yeah.

 

My main issue with a lot of the female lords is that they're just kinda overshadowed a lot of the time. Like I don't think it's too bad in sacred stones but it's really bad in SoV like really bad to the point where it actually takes away a lot from Celica's character arc.

Well, I can see the comparison, after all both of them are sheltered naive idealists, which reality ends up punching them in the face, specially Ike (he got punched like three times in the beginning of the story I believe).

Oh yeah, in Sacred Stones you can actually choose if you want to "shaft" or not Eirika; and she still had the first third of Sacred Stones even if you decided to go for Ephraim for the rest of the game. The other female lords suffer "overshadow" problems to various degrees.

BTW, you are the Severa icon? Why are you now a Kyubi?

Edited June 26, 2020 by Troykv

[Sidereal Wraith]

You’re better off reading classic fantasy/science fiction (see my recommendations list) then playing most JRPGS coming out on the market today. FE is the only series I’m still on the fence about, although the last few entries (3DS Era) haven’t done me any favors.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Wraith

[Samz707]

55 minutes ago, Wraith said:

You’re better off reading classic fantasy/science fiction (see my recommendations list) then playing most JRPGS coming out on the market today. FE is the only series I’m still on the fence about, although the last few entries (3DS Era) haven’t done me any favors.

Eh I liked Echoes.

But even then the forced in Awakening tie-in part is pretty much completely awful, complete with one of the worst boss fights I've ever seen. (Because who doesn't love gratitous RNG or forced hours of grinding/buying DLC classes? and random spawning in enemy reinforcements with gratitously inflated stats is totally fair.)

But yeah based on what I've seen of TH (And played of it so far) as well as what I've played of Awakening and seen of Fates, FE isn't actually going in a direction that interests me.

I think it says alot that I'd probably buy that fake Battles of Revolution April's fool joke over pretty much any recent FE game. (Echoes doesn't really count since it's mostly a remake keeping to the style of the original.)

Edited June 26, 2020 by Samz707

[Rose482]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

My main issue with a lot of the female lords is that they're just kinda overshadowed a lot of the time. Like I don't think it's too bad in sacred stones but it's really bad in SoV like really bad to the point where it actually takes away a lot from Celica's character arc.

I can understand why you would feel that way. I do also believe that IS has a problem when it comes to balancing screen time/importance to the plot between lords. If you were to only look at it from such a point of view, than yes it would seem that IS treats most of their female lords terribly, and I surely don't think they're perfect, but I also do feel that a lot of people don't give them credit on what they pull off right. I will try to list few examples of what I feel that IS does right, which are of course just my personal opinion. 

Well, for starters, I can't really name another JRPG series similar to FE which gives us as much female leads as FE did. Now I'm sure someone could say that they all had to share their spotlight with another lord, so it doesn't count. But I personally don't think that's inherently a bad thing. I think Scared Stones is a good example of IS doing it right, and I will also throw RD in there (even though I'm sure a good amount of people would disagree to that) And Three Houses could also be mentioned here, but I guess that's more of a Byleth game.

Second, none of them to me feels...super edgy? Which might sound like a weird point, a weird thing to list as a positive thing. But from my experience, from the JRPG games that I personally played that happened to have a female lead, almost all of them were edgy one way or another, which I don't think is inherently a bad thing, but I do like that IS hasn't gone that route. I like that IS has given me the types of female leads that would never ever become the main character in some other games series. I personally find this to be a very positive thing, which I assume isn't a popular opinion as some female lords personalities are praised around here. 

And lastly, while all the female lords come from different backgrounds, they're all allowed to fall in love. Which honestly is a foreign concept in RPGs with female protagonists. It's such a small thing, and yet it humanizes all of them to me.

Sorry if this ended up sounding like a rant lol. Not trying to change your opinion by the way, I'm just saying mine. 

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Wraith said:

You’re better off reading classic fantasy/science fiction (see my recommendations list) then playing most JRPGS coming out on the market today. FE is the only series I’m still on the fence about, although the last few entries (3DS Era) haven’t done me any favors.

I don't know. I think the gameplay of Olaf Stapledon is kind of lacking.

2 hours ago, Rose482 said:

I can understand why you would feel that way. I do also believe that IS has a problem when it comes to balancing screen time/importance to the plot between lords. If you were to only look at it from such a point of view, than yes it would seem that IS treats most of their female lords terribly, and I surely don't think they're perfect, but I also do feel that a lot of people don't give them credit on what they pull off right. I will try to list few examples of what I feel that IS does right, which are of course just my personal opinion. 

Well, for starters, I can't really name another JRPG series similar to FE which gives us as much female leads as FE did. Now I'm sure someone could say that they all had to share their spotlight with another lord, so it doesn't count. But I personally don't think that's inherently a bad thing. I think Scared Stones is a good example of IS doing it right, and I will also throw RD in there (even though I'm sure a good amount of people would disagree to that) And Three Houses could also be mentioned here, but I guess that's more of a Byleth game.

Second, none of them to me feels...super edgy? Which might sound like a weird point, a weird thing to list as a positive thing. But from my experience, from the JRPG games that I personally played that happened to have a female lead, almost all of them were edgy one way or another, which I don't think is inherently a bad thing, but I do like that IS hasn't gone that route. I like that IS has given me the types of female leads that would never ever become the main character in some other games series. I personally find this to be a very positive thing, which I assume isn't a popular opinion as some female lords personalities are praised around here. 

And lastly, while all the female lords come from different backgrounds, they're all allowed to fall in love. Which honestly is a foreign concept in RPGs with female protagonists. It's such a small thing, and yet it humanizes all of them to me.

Sorry if this ended up sounding like a rant lol. Not trying to change your opinion by the way, I'm just saying mine. 

I'm going to dispute this on the basis that Fire Emblem isn't a JRPG.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Jotari

[Rose482]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'm going to dispute this on the basis that Fire Emblem isn't a JRPG.

....Okay. 

[tacticianwhite]

11 minutes ago, Rose482 said:

....Okay. 

Personally I would say Fire Emblem is close to a JRPG. I mean it pretty much is, just a different "type" of one.

 

That being said, I do still think that the female lords aren't treated as fairly for my liking. Or, rather, the male lords are written to be much too perfect. That being said AGAIN, I still do genuinely like the female lords, and I wish some of the male lords were written to be as flawed as them (biggest offenders being Ephraim and Alm).

3 hours ago, Rose482 said:

Well, for starters, I can't really name another JRPG series similar to FE which gives us as much female leads as FE did.

This, however, I would definitely agree with!

[Sidereal Wraith]

11 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Eh I liked Echoes.

But even then the forced in Awakening tie-in part is pretty much completely awful, complete with one of the worst boss fights I've ever seen. (Because who doesn't love gratitous RNG or forced hours of grinding/buying DLC classes? and random spawning in enemy reinforcements with gratitously inflated stats is totally fair.)

But yeah based on what I've seen of TH (And played of it so far) as well as what I've played of Awakening and seen of Fates, FE isn't actually going in a direction that interests me.

I think it says alot that I'd probably buy that fake Battles of Revolution April's fool joke over pretty much any recent FE game. (Echoes doesn't really count since it's mostly a remake keeping to the style of the original.)

Echoes was pretty good, although it was a chore to play through. Like the original Gaiden the map design was horrid and a pain to play through, even with Mila’s Turnwheel. TH’s looks like it’s trying to take a step in the right direction, but I’ve been constantly scared off by it being more like the Persona series and needing to beat the game four times to get the full story. I currently don’t have 200 hours to beat TH but I may give it another try in August.

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

I don't know. I think the gameplay of Olaf Stapledon is kind of lacking.

Okay but Manly Wade Wellman’s gameplay is very macho and over the top. It would explain were Karl Edward Wagner got inspiration for his own game design.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Wraith

[Metal Flash]

7 hours ago, spiderbrush said:

Or, rather, the male lords are written to be much too perfect. That being said AGAIN, I still do genuinely like the female lords, and I wish some of the male lords were written to be as flawed as them (biggest offenders being Ephraim and Alm).

You know, that you`ve mentioned it, I agree with this statement. My problem lies more with the male lords than the female ones. I feel that Ephriam could have been more interesting if he been given flaws that impacted the storiy like Erika`s did, same with Alm. 

 

In fact, I feel that the female lords are more unique individualy than the male ones. For example, Lyn`s love of the plains and Celica believeing more in Mila than people, to me at least, makes them feel more standout than Eliwood being paitient and considerate or Chrom being kind yet headstrong. Now I like those two, but compared to other male lords, they feel pretty standard if you ask me.

[Jotari]

5 minutes ago, Metal Flash said:

You know, that you`ve mentioned it, I agree with this statement. My problem lies more with the male lords than the female ones. I feel that Ephriam could have been more interesting if he been given flaws that impacted the storiy like Erika`s did, same with Alm. 

 

In fact, I feel that the female lords are more unique individualy than the male ones. For example, Lyn`s love of the plains and Celica believeing more in Mila than people, to me at least, makes them feel more standout than Eliwood being paitient and considerate or Chrom being kind yet headstrong. Now I like those two, but compared to other male lords, they feel pretty standard if you ask me.

Ephraim having flaws wouldn't do much to solve the fact that Eirika's story is basically a long pointless diversion. She doesn't even achieve her intended goal until reuniting with Ephraim. Meanwhile he's dismantled the entire Grado capital.

[Alastor15243]

40 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Ephraim having flaws wouldn't do much to solve the fact that Eirika's story is basically a long pointless diversion. She doesn't even achieve her intended goal until reuniting with Ephraim. Meanwhile he's dismantled the entire Grado capital.

Yeah, and this happens twice. First Eirika tries to rescue Ephraim and winds up having to be rescued by Ephraim instead, and the second time she goes on a mission to deliver a message and needs to be rescued by Ephraim again, and in both instances, Ephraim's army is smaller than hers.

Plus, there's the issue where she's barely even the main character on her route either. Innes has so much involvement with the story that you could practically write Eirika out of her own route entirely after she rescues him in Chapter 10 and almost nothing would change.

Obviously you've already heard me say this, Jotari, but I figured I'd put it here to add to the discussion.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Alastor15243

[Metal Flash]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Ephraim having flaws wouldn't do much to solve the fact that Eirika's story is basically a long pointless diversion. She doesn't even achieve her intended goal until reuniting with Ephraim. Meanwhile he's dismantled the entire Grado capital.

True, I didn`t mean to imply that Ephriam having flaws suddenly fix everything. I just believe that it would him a more interesting character.

 

One thing I should have mentioned in the previous post, my main problem with how female lords are handled is how they are often overshadowed by the male lords in the same game.

[Icelerate]

10 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Yeah, and this happens twice. First Eirika tries to rescue Ephraim and winds up having to be rescued by Ephraim instead, and the second time she goes on a mission to deliver a message and needs to be rescued by Ephraim again, and in both instances, Ephraim's army is smaller than hers.

Plus, there's the issue where she's barely even the main character on her route either. Innes has so much involvement with the story that you could practically write Eirika out of her own route entirely after she rescues him in Chapter 10 and almost nothing would change.

 

Actually in chapter 8, Eirika's army is also fighting to get out so the effort was a combined effort to escape the trap. The same is true of the desert chapter and in that chapter Grado sends two of its best generals and they each command an entire army. Ephraim's army is stronger than her's because the forces were partitioned with the intent that Ephraim conquers Grado while Eirika only had to deliver the message. 

I think they both had a good role in Eirika's route. I don't think Innes had so much more involvement in the story than Eirika at all. I haven't counted all of their lines though. 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Icelerate

[Alastor15243]

10 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Actually in chapter 8, Eirika's army is also fighting to get out so the effort was a combined effort to escape the trap.

You can argue that, but it was clearly author intent that Ephraim was rescuing Eirika, given that she openly laments about coming all this way to save him, only to need to be saved by him, and he basically tells her "it's the thought that counts".

[Samz707]

I guess for me on the whole "Alm and Celica" situation, I do sorta like what the game is trying to kinda go for with Alm: while he doesn't make any story mistakes, there are (Even if Turnwheel makes it fairly unlikely this will happen outside of any sort of challenge run, which is why I'm not that big a fan of it.) several moments where he can mess up and get called out on it, such as killing Zeke, failing to save Mathilda and maybe even end up killing Delthea in self defense. (Though I don't know if Luthier comments on it outside of the actual battle though you still ended up killing an innocent and potential recruit.)

I do actually sorta like this in theory, how the player's failings are mentioned. (I''d actually like another FE game where there's I guess side-objectives such as saving civilians where failing them isn't a game over but the story goes on with you getting called out on it since I feel any sort of dramatic moment where the Hero fails works a ton more in gaming if it's actually optional and it's the player's own fault since well, it's actually your fault.)

Celica is kinda mostly the same, You have the 3 whitewings where you're kinda encouraged to keep all 3 alive and you have saving all of Valbar's group, you have optional moments where the tone of some bits (Such as recruiting Valbar and his group) change a decent bit darker if you failed (Granted to my knowledge the Valbar's group dialogue only changes if Valbar is dead, I can't find anything if it changes if just Leon/Kamui dies.)  then she has some really contrived bad plot stuff about trusting the obviously evil Jedah which I think is kinda awful.

So I feel they're actually even mostly in the  same "Doesn't make mistakes unless the player does" field up until the Swamps then Celica ends up going downhill and making really stupid decisions. (I don't know how this went down in the original Gaiden but I seriously feel like A: they should have had Celica not agree to Jedah's proposal but just get forced into it after being ambushed at the tower since it would change very little (Since she's basically given no choice in the end anyway and we were already heading to Duma Tower.) or B: Have Jedah actually not be so obviously evil and some semblance of actually being able to manipulate people since he kinda both looks, sounds and acts incredibly evil.)

Edited June 27, 2020 by Samz707

[Icelerate]

39 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

You can argue that, but it was clearly author intent that Ephraim was rescuing Eirika, given that she openly laments about coming all this way to save him, only to need to be saved by him, and he basically tells her "it's the thought that counts".

I think the script of SS can be improved because the story told by the gameplay is more compelling at times because I like the idea of Eirika freeing herself with some assistance with Ephraim to be more compelling. This is what happens in that Orson chapter anyway. It's not like Eirika is initially helpless. 

[Samz707]

While I've seen people praise TH's writing, personally in what I've played (over 3 hours), it's kind actually really, really terrible in regards to the students.

The game constantly brings up stuff that happened (Like Berndetta apparently being in the corner and covering her face the entire time on our first day) yet none of is stuff we actually see happen, the game is just telling us about all these events Byleth was there for instead of just telling us and personally when a character is clumsily expositioning to me some wacky event that I never actually saw (Such as Bernie apparently being seen by Blyeth singing in the Greenhouse which is funny because I'm Byleth and I never saw it.) actually just kinda makes me not care about these characters at all when the game is just clumsily telling me how we're buddies instead of actually showing it.

 It's been several in-game weeks and I still know basically nothing about anyone but apparently we're all buddies according to the game, yeah no, we're not and frankly all it does is just make me care less and less about anyone.

It's a uniquely terrible thing to clumsily exposition how great friends I am with someone with a self-insert character where I should have logically seen all of these events happen and it's frankly incredibly lazy to do that instead of actually having the scenes happen in game and some of the worst writing I've ever seen in regards to a self-insert character that ironically just makes me care less about everyone.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Samz707

[Icelerate]

I think the playable army can stand to lose more often. It would make the story more engaging if the enemy can get an upper hand from time to time but this rarely happens in most FE games. 

[Shrimpica]

12 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I think the playable army can stand to lose more often. It would make the story more engaging if the enemy can get an upper hand from time to time but this rarely happens in most FE games. 

The problem with that is that it can create a very weird gameplay Story dissonance. Nothing is worse then winning gameplay wise then losing in the Story.

One way to make it happen is more escape maps (as in, player army gotta escape before getting overwhelmed by the enemy) or something similiar. But if you do too many of them, it will become repititive.

[Icelerate]

3 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

The problem with that is that it can create a very weird gameplay Story dissonance. Nothing is worse then winning gameplay wise then losing in the Story.

One way to make it happen is more escape maps (as in, player army gotta escape before getting overwhelmed by the enemy) or something similiar. But if you do too many of them, it will become repititive.

I think Thracia and RD did those maps where the player army loses just fine. Or just have a story segment without a map and instead have a cut-scene or whatever. You can still win a tactical victory but end up with a strategic defeat as well. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Icelerate

[Acacia Sgt]

I'd say, can't say the idea itself is bad, but I would agree it's best to keep it in moderation. Otherwise a player might feel like all their effort is going to waste as it's amounting to nothing in the end.

On that subject, I feel somewhat disappointed that's what it boils down the entirety of the DB chapters during Part 3. 3-7 negates 3-6, and 3-12 and 3-13 get negated in their respective aftermath scenes.

[starburst]

56 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I think the playable army can stand to lose more often. It would make the story more engaging if the enemy can get an upper hand from time to time but this rarely happens in most FE games. 

I would also like to explore how to handle losses in Fire Emblem. Rigged battles are either predictable or unfair, and so would messages hinting that your units would not be lost should they fall in this particular battle. Deus ex machina is an option, but it must be clever, otherwise it would be as unfair. And I still do not trust the writers to create enough tension and deceit in a battle and actually trick the player. Should losses be only handled outside battles?

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Shrimperor said:

The problem with that is that it can create a very weird gameplay Story dissonance. Nothing is worse then winning gameplay wise then losing in the Story.

One way to make it happen is more escape maps (as in, player army gotta escape before getting overwhelmed by the enemy) or something similiar. But if you do too many of them, it will become repititive.

Of the losses in the series we see so far that I can recall.

Marth being force to retreat to Pyrathi: Treated in story as an ambush and in gameplay functions something like an escape map before escape maps were a thing (even though you don't have enemies attacking your rear).

Alm being overwhelmed by dragons: Not necessarily a loss, but a "pointless victory" sort of deal until other parts of the story catch up. Alm will keep having to fight an unending battle against dragons in a volcano until you reach the end of Celica's story.

Marth forcing to run from Hardin on the Soulful Bridge: Another proto escape map before escape maps existed.

Deirdre getting kidnapped by Manfroy: Done in a cutscene (despite being on the actual map).

Sigurd being force to retreat to Silesa: Done with a cutscene at the end of the chapter showing reinforcements that the player couldn't deal with appearing on the map and canonically a betrayal Sigurd wasn't expecting.

Grannvale helping Silesian rebel faction: Done in gameplay where an army of NPCs are wiped out. Though the player still wins that war eventually it does provide a loss for them and motivates Sigurd to go on the offensive in the next chapter.

Belhalla Barbecue: Kills fucking everyone (almost).

Leif getting captured: Reptor shows up in a cutscene at the end of the map and captures Leif (and Lifis and no one else somehow).

Evyel getting turned to stone: Done in full gameplay as the player rushes in vain to help.

Thracia 776: A bunch of escape and defend maps with the fall of Tara being most notable. There's also an off-screen battle in which a character is killed and the following chapter involves doing what's possible to rescue the units fleeing from that battle.

Roy being outmatched by Bern and having to wait for Erturia's help: All done in cutscenes unfortunately.

Thwarting Nergal at the dragon's gate but also sort of failing to defeat him and Elbert dying: Sort of a win, sort of a loss. Though it all happens in cutscenes.

Ephraim's first counter attack on Grado not succeeding: All but the tail end of it (where he succeeds) being off screen.

Innes getting betrayed in Carcino: Also all off screen aside from the tail end, unfortunately.

Greil dying? He's a protagonist, basically at that point, even if never playable.

Ludveck's decoy army, a trap Elincia falls right into: Done as a chapter where the characters discover their error at the end. I guess while we're at it here Lucia getting captured in a cutscene.

The Laguz Alliance getting pushed back by Begnion: Skimir's fault instead of Ike's. Featured somewhat in a cutscene but one that has a gameplay chapter where you're climbing a mountain to get there in time.

Micaiah failing to fend off Ike: Done using two different playable armies against each other along with defend chapters.

Everyone in the world that you can't control being turned to stone: Sort of done in a cutscene but also with a unique chapter condition where it ends when a certain number of units die.

Emmeryn (and that pegasus knight) dying: Done in a cutscene after a chapter. Though while a loss for the character's personally it does end up being an overall military gain due to moral.

Some stuff in the Valm arc with betrayals or something: Mostly happens offscreen though with some gameplay integration in the form of reinforcements we're told were perviously on outside.

Jearlt dying: Cutscene after a chapter.

Everything being a mess when Byleth's away: All off screen of course.

 

So actually examining things the players do lose somewhat frequently in the series. The only game where I can't think of any examples is Fates, though maybe I'm just not racking my brain hard enough. All in all though it seems to happen more than once even every game. Maybe it just doesn't feel like it a lot of the time because the plot usually frames it as small victories in light of a bad situation. The series rarely ever goes full Belhalla on it's characters. But if you want examples of how to do it well, I think (as Icelerate said beore) Thracia 776 and Radiant Dawn plus Genealogy of the Holy War provide the best examples by far. Usually it's in the form of

*Defense/Escape maps

*A larger context in the story where there are forces the player is allied with that lose even if the player wins (like the failure of the Laguz alliance or Ludveck pulling one over on Elincia with his decoy mercenary army).

*Integrated gameplay and story (Evyel's death probably being the best example of this)

*All happening in a cutscene, usually the worst way to do these things, but if you go high enough on the holy shit scale then it works (such as Belhalla or Greil's death)

The worst thing to do would be to just have the players randomly lose after they win in gameplay (Deirdre/Leif getting captured are probably the worst examples) or having it all happen offscreen (sometimes a necessiaty, but damnit if I wouldn't enjoy Sacred Stones more is I got to play Ephraim and Innes's failure campaigns). I think probably the worst overall is the Valm arc where we keep getting told we're suffering all these losses and are being pushed back between chapters yet it never effects any gameplay at all except for a "BTW those generics that look like every other generics used to be on our side", with the counter upswing where the players start winning being just as showey without telly (yet for some reason I still rather like the Valm arc, and I'm not sure why).

Edited July 6, 2020 by Jotari

[Icelerate]

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I'd say, can't say the idea itself is bad, but I would agree it's best to keep it in moderation. Otherwise a player might feel like all their effort is going to waste as it's amounting to nothing in the end.

On that subject, I feel somewhat disappointed that's what it boils down the entirety of the DB chapters during Part 3. 3-7 negates 3-6, and 3-12 and 3-13 get negated in their respective aftermath scenes.

I mean in terms of practicality, it can only be done in moderation unless the nature of the game is that the enemies win. 

Care to elaborate why you feel this way? 

@Jotari

I meant battlefield victories so I wouldn't count Deirdre getting kidnapped as one of them but it sure is a victory for the villains.