What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, Florete said:

Alm is a worse Micaiah and a terrible character in general.

I disagree with him being a bad character inherently but the way he's written is just so baffling for SoV's narrative. Like he's written for the most part as a static protagonist but then randomly becomes a dynamic one kinda out of no where and it doesn't make any sense. 

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, X-Naut said:

This is something I'd like to see the series address going forward. Not just in Three Houses, but in practically every game but FE4 being benched makes you a sitting duck, and it got worse from Radiant Dawn on with stronger enemy progression. Let units grow a bit even if you don't deploy them; not to the same extent as who you're fielding but enough that it's more manageable to find a replacement if someone bites it. Ironmans aren't the only beneficiaries here, it makes team rotation and a cut-back on reclassing importance more viable because you don't need to compress roles as much.

Bonus exp was a way to kind of make that happen I guess, just with more player control.

[Icelerate]

4 hours ago, Florete said:

Alm is a worse Micaiah and a terrible character in general.

Isn't Alm more of an Edelgard than a Micaiah? 

[Jotari]

49 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Isn't Alm more of an Edelgard than a Micaiah? 

I find his Echoes incarnation more a Marth than anyone else. Though his plot arc (though not necessarily his character arc) is undoubtedly Ike.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Jotari

[Florete]

2 hours ago, Icelerate said:

Isn't Alm more of an Edelgard than a Micaiah? 

I don't see what about Alm and Edelgard is similar to each other.

[ping]

Hmmm...

They both grew up as commoners, but are secretly (without knowing themselves) heirs to the throne of the games' respective Evil Empire (TM).
Both of them feel a deep connection to their "new" home country, to the point where Micaiah becomes Daein's queen in the end (while Zofia and Rigel are united at the end of Alm's game).
They're both initially installed as a figurehead leader of their games' Résistance because it makes a great narrative (in-universe - both Clive and Izuka consider this).
Speaking of - they both defy Clive/Izuka when they propose a pragmatic, heartless approach to a situation (the swamp chapter in RD, Delthea in SoV).

Yeah, I can see the similarities.

Personally, I'm not too impressed by either, tbh. I still find that Miccy regresses as a character in pt.3 and while I can understand her hesitation to go against Pelleas' orders a bit more these days (because of the swamp chapter and how Izuka's accusation of her making Pelleas look bad actually became real despite her intentions), I still think that Micaiah needed and never got a conclusion to that character arc.
Alm is a nice goofy fellow, but it bugs me that he seems to be correct about everything, always sensible, always making the right calls. Which I guess is a bit inconsistent on my part, given that I like Roy. But in Alm's case, we have a co-lord in Celica who is shown to be emotional, too focussed on making/helping Mila fix things instead of doing things on her own, too naive. I think I wouldn't mind either lord on his/her own, but it bugs me that they have the same "the sensible one" vs. "the stupid one" dynamic as Ephraim and Eirika before them.

[Benice]

2 minutes ago, ping said:

but it bugs me that he seems to be correct about everything, always sensible, always making the right calls. Which I guess is a bit inconsistent on my part, given that I like Roy.

But Roy made a mistake by not having Merlinus removed from the army/assassinated! The largest mistake in FE franchise.

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Bonus exp was a way to kind of make that happen I guess, just with more player control.

I like Echoes' version the best, tbh. (Wait, did I already say this? I can't remember.) Tellius is a bit too dependant on Bexp and just lets you make your already OP units more OP-Heck, in PoR, I made Mia into a powerhouse, (IIRC she reached around level 14 or 15) the first chapter that I had BEXP with her and still had, like, three more full levels for everyone else to spare. Perhaps if there wasn't much Bexp, but at least a little? (Maybe enough for one or two every chapter?)

[Topaz Light]

On 8/11/2020 at 12:01 PM, Benice said:

I feel like there was some stuff lost in translation with him- First off, a villager calls him a "Gentle man" despite the fact that he says,

"I want to know if we brought down that pegasus knight! If she’s still breathing, make her stop!"

Which doesn't exactly scream gentle. He's also called a Legendary knight (Or something among those lines, I know for certain that he is called Legendary to some capacity) even though he's unpromoted. I'm guessing that the village was supposed to be referring to Bernard, as he is promoted and is gentle, two things that Bauker isn't.

Here are the lines describing Bauker, for reference:

VILLAGE VISIT TEXT (CIVILIAN MAN): “Ah, you there! You’re Caelin knights, aren’t you? Marquess Laus’s man, the one called Bauker… He seems like a gentle man, but his skill is near legendary. Do you carry weapons suited to battling knights? Take this if you please.”

CHAPTER CLEAR (ELIWOOD): “Command Bauker… He was a fierce enemy.”

BAUKER STATUS SCREEN HELP TEXT: "Commander of the Imperial Guard of Laus."

So, he is described as a "fierce enemy" of "near legendary" skill, and this guy does say he "seems like a gentle man"... It's kind of strange lore to give to a character who's otherwise no different from the generic one-off bosses in any other chapters or Fire Emblem games. I myself actually can't help but wonder what's going on there, translation-wise, since while the description the villager gives isn't nonsensical in itself, it doesn't seem to match the character it's attributed to very well at all.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Topaz Light

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Benice said:

But Roy made a mistake by not having Merlinus removed from the army/assassinated! The largest mistake in FE franchise.

I like Echoes' version the best, tbh. (Wait, did I already say this? I can't remember.) Tellius is a bit too dependant on Bexp and just lets you make your already OP units more OP-Heck, in PoR, I made Mia into a powerhouse, (IIRC she reached around level 14 or 15) the first chapter that I had BEXP with her and still had, like, three more full levels for everyone else to spare. Perhaps if there wasn't much Bexp, but at least a little? (Maybe enough for one or two every chapter?)

I'd say it needs to be more about exp scaling than amount. If the idea of bexp is to give units behind a fighting chance, then we need it to mean practically nothing to units who are at the head of the curve and a lot to units who are behind. Fates really scaled back the exp curve for combat exp, so if we saw something like that for bonus exp it would probably work more to service weak units than strong ones. It could maybe even be made into a more simplistic unit measurement kind of like grails in heroes. It costs one bexp to level a unit from level 1->2, two to level them from 2-3 and so on. So you could level two units from level 1 to level 5 in the same amount it takes to level a level 10 unit once.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Jotari

[Alastor15243]

46 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'd say it needs to be more about exp scaling than amount. If the idea of bexp is to give units behind a fighting chance, then we need it to mean practically nothing to units who are at the head of the curve and a lot to units who are behind. Fates really scaled back the exp curve for combat exp, so if we saw something like that for bonus exp it would probably work more to service weak units than strong ones. It could maybe even be made into a more simplistic unit measurement kind of like grails in heroes. It costs one bexp to level a unit from level 1->2, two to level them from 2-3 and so on. So you could level two units from level 1 to level 5 in the same amount it takes to level a level 10 unit once.

Under your formula, level 1 to level 5 would be 1, 2, 3, 4, which is 10, so it would actually be 20 to level 2 units from level 1 to level 5, and only 9 to level a level 10 unit once.

[Emmy]

16 hours ago, Benice said:

Really! I've never actually played an FE game that has casual as a game mode. (Well, FE12, but that doesn't count because I was memeing on Reverse Lunatic.) How come you think that, actually? I'm not meaning to call you out, but I don't really understand that perspective; from my point of view,  the thing that makes FE a Tactical RPG and not just an RPG is permadeath- Each unit's values become more important and vital to the team. Of course, Three houses makes Classic mode heavily unviable and has a turnwheel mechanic, so I can see why you'd dislike it if it's one of the only FE games you've played. To me, there is nothing wrong with resetting when a unit dies, (I think my Berwick playthrough's had about 75 resets because I miss tiny side objectives) but I mostly like that you can't, for example, send someone into the frontlines into a group of enemies because they'll just come back after the map.

 

 

Well, i just don't want my units to die after i've become attached, and resetting just seems like a waste of time, because i can easily play without classic mode, so why should I?

[Alastor15243]

27 minutes ago, Emmy said:

 

Well, i just don't want my units to die after i've become attached, and resetting just seems like a waste of time, because i can easily play without classic mode, so why should I?

You enjoy playing a game where resetting feels like a waste of time? For me, when resetting feels like a waste of time, it's because I'm not having fun.

[Emmy]

5 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

You enjoy playing a game where resetting feels like a waste of time? For me, when resetting feels like a waste of time, it's because I'm not having fun.

Hence why i play on casual mode 😆

[Alastor15243]

Just now, Emmy said:

Hence why i play on casual mode 😆

No, what I meant was that it doesn't sound to me like you actually enjoy the gameplay at all, if the thought of playing a map again sounds boring to you. At least, that's what would have prompted that "resetting feels like a waste of time" reaction from me.

[Emmy]

1 minute ago, Alastor15243 said:

No, what I meant was that it doesn't sound to me like you actually enjoy the gameplay at all, if the thought of playing a map again sounds boring to you. At least, that's what would have prompted that "resetting feels like a waste of time" reaction from me.

No the maps are fun! i love them.

I love the actual gameplay, just not reseting to save units if it isn't necessary.

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by Emmy

[Alastor15243]

1 minute ago, Emmy said:

No the maps are fun! i love them.

I love the actual gameplay, just not reseting to save units if it isn't necessary.

 

Why not? Why does restarting the chapter even once sound like a chore? I'm asking because this extremely common sentiment is pretty interesting to me when you think about it in the wider context of video games. I mean, it's not like getting a game over in other games is such a massive let-down, right? Can you think of any other game series where losing is such a pain that you'd rather be almost entirely immune to it, and yet you still consider it fun? What makes Fire Emblem so different for so many people?

[Emmy]

6 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Why not? Why does restarting the chapter even once sound like a chore? I'm asking because this extremely common sentiment is pretty interesting to me when you think about it in the wider context of video games. I mean, it's not like getting a game over in other games is such a massive let-down, right? Can you think of any other game series where losing is such a pain that you'd rather be almost entirely immune to it, and yet you still consider it fun? What makes Fire Emblem so different for so many people?

You do have a point. But casual gives me an option to (almost) never reset, which is why i play casual. I'm also usually pretty busy (homework and projects and stuff) so I only have usually an hour and a half a day that i can probably play video games depending on the day, so I want to be able to use that time most effectively.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Emmy

[Benice]

4 hours ago, Topaz Light said:

Here are the lines describing Bauker, for reference:

Thank you! I wasn't able to find those lines anywhere.

35 minutes ago, Emmy said:

Well, i just don't want my units to die after i've become attached, and resetting just seems like a waste of time, because i can easily play without classic mode, so why should I?

Y'know, that's really fair; I think I didn't let a character die in any of my plathroughs of FE7, 6 or 8 until the second time around, and my ironman of FE7 has had its fair share of depressing moments. Mostly because I've killed off well over three quarters of the cast, but... (And I've spared the lives of, like 90% characters I like in a side fanfiction I'm doing with the LP...)

Anyways! Perhaps in a game that isn't Three Houses, (I would Suggest New Mystery of the Emblem, FE12) I would try doing a casual ironman; no resetting unless you have to, but units that die miss not just the map you're on, but the one after that- It'd teach you how to work with limited units but you don't have to deal with your units dying-If you like that, perhaps you could try SoV or Fates or Awakening or something with the same thing but two maps if you retreat, etc. until you feel confident enough to play classic!

 

Although, play however you like, as long as you have fun. That is very much the important part. I would personally suggest trying out the older games and Berwick Saga at some point, as there are some really fun ones back there, and there's no casual mode for those, but do as you please, and enjoy yourself!

[Whisky]

Speaking for myself, I only play on Classic because it adds more weight to each move you make. Every decision can have lasting consequences. But while I enjoy replaying the game again, I don’t enjoy replaying the same chapter that I just played again, which is part of the reason I like Ironmans in addition to compounding the reasons I already mentioned. Every decision has even more weight to it in an Ironman. I can understand why someone would enjoy replaying a chapter, if it’s to try to improve your strategy and try to figure out better ways to play the chapter. But if I’m only resetting to bring a character back because of my own mistake, then I’d rather just continue without them.

[Emmy]

2 minutes ago, Benice said:

Thank you! I wasn't able to find those lines anywhere.

Y'know, that's really fair; I think I didn't let a character die in any of my plathroughs of FE7, 6 or 8 until the second time around, and my ironman of FE7 has had its fair share of depressing moments. Mostly because I've killed off well over three quarters of the cast, but... (And I've spared the lives of, like 90% characters I like in a side fanfiction I'm doing with the LP...)

Anyways! Perhaps in a game that isn't Three Houses, (I would Suggest New Mystery of the Emblem, FE12) I would try doing a casual ironman; no resetting unless you have to, but units that die miss not just the map you're on, but the one after that- It'd teach you how to work with limited units but you don't have to deal with your units dying-If you like that, perhaps you could try SoV or Fates or Awakening or something with the same thing but two maps if you retreat, etc. until you feel confident enough to play classic!

 

Although, play however you like, as long as you have fun. That is very much the important part. I would personally suggest trying out the older games and Berwick Saga at some point, as there are some really fun ones back there, and there's no casual mode for those, but do as you please, and enjoy yourself!

For every game with a casual mode, i'll play on casual, but when (and if) i do play games without it, I'm gonna try and just do classic mode.

[Ether]

8 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Why not? Why does restarting the chapter even once sound like a chore? I'm asking because this extremely common sentiment is pretty interesting to me when you think about it in the wider context of video games. I mean, it's not like getting a game over in other games is such a massive let-down, right? Can you think of any other game series where losing is such a pain that you'd rather be almost entirely immune to it, and yet you still consider it fun? What makes Fire Emblem so different for so many people?

I think a lot of it depends on context. If a map is mostly solved by the time you use a unit, and replaying the map doesn't change your strategy at the end, then it's just doing the inputs and waiting on enemy phase to get to slightly changing one action at the tail end, or possibly not even changing said action if it was the optimal play for the situation, but RNG said no. Imagine a game where, preceding a difficult boss fight, there was a very long puzzle section and losing to the boss took you back to before the puzzle. You've already solved the puzzle, so the fun is gone, it's just re-doing the actions to get another crack at the boss fight. I suppose a more relevant example is the Black Knight fight in PoR. If you get bad RNG vs the Black Knight and lose, you need to replay the entirety of ch27 in order to challenge him again, even though it will change nothing about the experience of ch27 itself.

[ping]

*double post, already reported*

Edited August 20, 2020 by ping

[ping]

7 hours ago, Benice said:

But Roy made a mistake by not having Merlinus removed from the army/assassinated! The largest mistake in FE franchise.

I considered adding that the interactions with Merlinus are my least favourite aspect of Roy's character.

Edited August 20, 2020 by ping

[Alastor15243]

2 minutes ago, Ether said:

I think a lot of it depends on context. If a map is mostly solved by the time you use a unit, and replaying the map doesn't change your strategy at the end, then it's just doing the inputs and waiting on enemy phase to get to slightly changing one action at the tail end, or possibly not even changing said action if it was the optimal play for the situation, but RNG said no. Imagine a game where, preceding a difficult boss fight, there was a very long puzzle section and losing to the boss took you back to before the puzzle. You've already solved the puzzle, so the fun is gone, it's just re-doing the actions to get another crack at the boss fight. I suppose a more relevant example is the Black Knight fight in PoR. If you get bad RNG vs the Black Knight and lose, you need to replay the entirety of ch27 in order to challenge him again, even though it will change nothing about the experience of ch27 itself.

I think that gets to the heart of it: replaying a chapter hurts less the more there's something you could have done differently to avoid what happened to you. The more that death resulted from bullshit you couldn't have seen coming, or just in general the less it was your fault, the less you need to change about what you did the first time.

[lenticular]

35 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

I think that gets to the heart of it: replaying a chapter hurts less the more there's something you could have done differently to avoid what happened to you. The more that death resulted from bullshit you couldn't have seen coming, or just in general the less it was your fault, the less you need to change about what you did the first time.

For me, a bigger part is the difference between retrying the part of the level where I died (which is fun to me) and having to go through the motions on the parts of a level which I feel as if I have already mastered (which is not). How much this is a problem depends on the game and map in question, but in general, if ever there's a point in a map where there's a let-up in enemies and I have time to reposition my units, heal up anyone who needs it, etc. then that creates a disconnect between what happens before and what happens after. Improving my strategy before that point doesn't do anything to help me out afterwards, so replaying it is just repeating the strategy I've already found.

So, for instance, consider a 5 turn defend map. There's a constant stream of enemies from beginning to end, and any decisions that I make will have ramifications that last throughout the entire battle. If I fail the map or lose a unit on turn five that doesn't necessarily mean that I made a mistake on turn five. It might mean that I made a mistake on turn one, then managed to struggle through to turn five anyway before my mistake caught up with me. That level sounds like it would be fun to replay.

On the other hand, consider a very large rout map, full of wide open spaces, with several distinct groups of enemies who won't move unless approached who are far enough away that they can be fought separately. If I make a non-fatal mistake at the start out of that level, then I'm going to be able to stabilise from it. I can take a turn or two to reposition, heal and essentially reset the level. It's effectively as if the level has several small and distinct sub-challenges which are entirely independent of each other. If I make it through three groups of enemies flawlessly but then make a mistake on the fourth group and need to reset, then that does not sound like fun to me at all.