Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

Maybe unpopular? I've never seen people state these reasons as such so I dunno if I just think this way and everyone else thinks the game is unbalanced for other reasons.

Awakening is flat-out backwards designed, almost every thing in it is broken/contradicted by another element, it is from a design perspective,  contradictory.

Child Units, except they come so late you'd have to seriously delay the main story to get them grinded up or even get all of them at all. (Especially Noire in my experience, for a character who's in a terrible class yet has such a insanely difficult map, just because the enemies have absurd stats.)

Stats really matter...except they also don't because stats are hilariously inflated seriously did FE need stats to go into the 40s? so actual 1-2 point level ups are near worthless as you need many of them to make a dent. (which also reduces the value of stat boosters as you effectively need more of them for the same effect in other games.)

Instead of using Armour Knights to tank damage, you're using Tharja/Robin, mages, a class generally in FE regarded as squishy in direct combat, with Nosferatu to tank the damage and effectively have infinite health, if anything the stat inflation means Armour Knights kinda suck at their job when they get easily doubled by silver/killer bows late-game enemies who are still going to do a ton of damage regardless. 

More new classes...except Nosferatu tanking beats all of them, why get a situational war cleric, who can become an effective dread fighter in a desert map when a Nosferatu unit ALSO isn't effected by Sand and is functionally immortal outside of extreme unluckiness?, in general armour knights and archers are completely surpassed by Nosferatu, Kellam is only useful because of his Rally ability for defense/pair up stat bonuses and Thieves are basically redundant since enemies always drop their items. 

The Main story/side chapters want you to be starved for resources, chasing down thieves for master seals and completing the absurdly difficult optional objectives in paralogues for physic staves and such....except just waiting a day/moving forwards the 3DS clock gives random battles/Anas that render them redundant, why bust my ass chasing down a thief through an army of enemies with absurd stats or rushing to defend a village, when I can just use my literally infinite money to buy one from Ana? (or just you know, Use Tharja with her 45 defensive growth.)

Robin's a "Tactician" yet their playstyle and absurd stat growth means they're used more as an elite commando unit (Especially if you reclass them into a Nosferatu capable class) rather than a teamplayer, infact Vaike, a dumb warrior and Kellam, a Knight who people consistently can't see, get skills much earlier than Robin that provide much more effective teamplay capabilities than Robin.  (Not to mention Robin's character is all about strategy, in a game which is ironically harder the more you actually try to apply strategy to it and has unfair unstrategic gameplay elements like Ambush spawns or only predictable via extreme trial and error like the pair-up mechanics where your chances can only bee see in the battle forecast, in an enemy phase focused game.)  Sure, Robin gets rally spectum but you'll be almost done with the main story potentially by the time you actually unlock that and at that point you've probably made them a Nosferatu Tank.

And this is without considering story. (like a game that tries so hard to be set in a previous continuity despite contradicting it constantly.)

The game feels like it's fighting itself with how much it contradicts itself, like the design team had no actual design and were just throwing stuff in left and right.

Edited by Samz707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Maof06 said:

About its story, basically it is Shadow Dragon bogged down by Fates storytelling. The problem is that the game tries to play safe, and things barely happen.

Indeed. That's how I've always seen it which sadly makes Birthright the worst of both worlds. Boring and nonsensical at the same time. 

But it does have some things going for it. I enjoyed that they made Zola an actual character with his own little arc. I also think its the only route where Iago really works as an antagonist. He's a complete failure who always fails but promises to get Corrin next time. As a result he's actually a rather entertaining secondary antagonist. Its a role that fits his personality very well. In Conquest he suffers because the story tries giving him an importance and dominance his character simply can't pull off. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awakening is easily my second least favorite fe, but that’s almost entirely because the map design from the Gangrel chapter and up is god awful and on hard mode the ambush spawns are so incredibly horrible. What a game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy was the original Edelgard. 

Roy: “You said you would give the world to the Dragons. Then rule by humans would just be replaced by similar rule by Dragons!”

Zephiel: “The Dragons you see now are weapons for battle. They have no ‘self.’ They have no cruel emotions to be driven by, unlike foolish humans. The world under the Dragons’ control would be fair and peaceful.”

Roy: “I cannot agree that such a world would be for the better good! It is true that humans have many evil emotions and do terrible things, but it has always been us humans who have corrected such wrongdoings!”

Zephiel: “Hmph…you are indeed naive.”

Roy: “I have faith in mankind. I will not lose to a man who has lost faith in his people and even in himself!”

Edelgard: The children of the goddess have been defeated at last. The shape of the world will be forever changed. Humanity is free now. The world is ours once again. Can you believe it?

Share this post


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

Roy was the original Edelgard.

sure you're not mistaking Alm with Roy?

its not like theres no similarity, but seems Alm closer if that dialogue is the reference

6 hours ago, Icelerate said:

Roy: “You said you would give the world to the Dragons. Then rule by humans would just be replaced by similar rule by Dragons!”

 

Edelgard: The children of the goddess have been defeated at last. The shape of the world will be forever changed. Humanity is free now. The world is ours once again. Can you believe it?

 

the world already in human's hands in Binbla, while in edelgard route its after ending that humanity is free.

Roy wants to restore peace. while edelgard wants changes.

Roy somewhat indifferent in regards to human vs dragon and focus more on the conflict (compare it to Yoder who frequently appears trying to find a way to drive away dragon). Edelgard version of having humanity free means defeating children of goddess. its Means versus Ends.

Both fight the influential dragon at the end, but Roy prefer to talks first and try to persuade Idunn to stop adding fuel to the fire of war. while in 3H, if i remember correctly Edelgard straight up wants to take Rhea out of the picture.

in short Roy more of fix  type, while Edelgard replace type (when things dont work)

but both believe in humanity more than their adversary, that similarity is very much true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edelgard is not a morally complex or grey character. Whenever you approve of her actions it boils down to if you think utilitarianism is a correct normative system of ethics. Either her ends justifies her means or they don't. (Assuming of course that the good state of affairs brought by her ends outweigh the bad state of affairs brought by her means, which the game heavily implies it does, at least on her route, which even adds more to my point.) The whole concept of moral greyness just seems incoherent to me, at least it is not a term I've heard studying ethics, but I am not an expert anyhow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cynthia Stan said:

Edelgard is not a morally complex or grey character. Whenever you approve of her actions it boils down to if you think utilitarianism is a correct normative system of ethics. Either her ends justifies her means or they don't. (Assuming of course that the good state of affairs brought by her ends outweigh the bad state of affairs brought by her means, which the game heavily implies it does, at least on her route, which even adds more to my point.) The whole concept of moral greyness just seems incoherent to me, at least it is not a term I've heard studying ethics, but I am not an expert anyhow. 

It's the means themselves I'd take issue with. She could achieve the same result by reforming the government in her own state and not violating the sovereignty of others. The success of her own state would then decide whether others would inevitably follow suit.

Share this post


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

It's the means themselves I'd take issue with. She could achieve the same result by reforming the government in her own state and not violating the sovereignty of others. The success of her own state would then decide whether others would inevitably follow suit.

exactly why Roy is not similar to edelgard in my above post. She is more like Zephiel where ends justify means

Share this post


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

exactly why Roy is not similar to edelgard in my above post. She is more like Zephiel where ends justify means

Zephiel and the worst justify do not belong in the same sentence. Zephiel doesn’t care about the means at all, Edelgard does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Zephiel and the worst justify do not belong in the same sentence. Zephiel doesn’t care about the means at all, Edelgard does.

really? more like Edelgard looks that way since we can make her one of possible protagonist. but as antagonist did she explain in detail what her plan are to all sides (that waging war to the church is the best/fastest means in her head) ?

for the record, im not suggesting edelgard is zephiel 2.0 . its just theres more similarity than roy. thats it.

its like comparing edelgard as Red apple, and zephiel as green apple, while roy is watermelon.
what, you dont get it? good. lol

Edited by joevar

Share this post


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

exactly why Roy is not similar to edelgard in my above post. She is more like Zephiel where ends justify means

Well Zephiel's ends was the complete extinction of humanity, so I'm not sure that's really a fair comparison. At least from a human's perspective.

 

 

Share this post


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

Well Zephiel's ends was the complete extinction of humanity, so I'm not sure that's really a fair comparison. At least from a human's perspective.

fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's the means themselves I'd take issue with. She could achieve the same result by reforming the government in her own state and not violating the sovereignty of others. The success of her own state would then decide whether others would inevitably follow suit.

I think it's implied she can't possible do that, in order to reform her country she needs the support of TWSITD, which only helped her in game because of her plan to destroy the church. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, joevar said:

really? more like Edelgard looks that way since we can make her one of possible protagonist. but as antagonist did she explain in detail what her plan are to all sides (that waging war to the church is the best/fastest means in her head) ?

Edelgard constantly talks about how “the path before me... is covered in blood” and stuff like that, and in Silver Snow and Verdant Wind when you have her on the ground in the throne room she says something along the lines of “All across this land, people are killing each other. If you don’t strike me down, it will continue.” or something like that, and she mentions quite frequently that she has to steel herself to ascend the imperial throne, and considering what she does when on the imperial throne, it’s pretty heavily implied she has to prepare herself for all the death and destruction she will cause.

Meanwhile Zephiel is just like “daddy issues therefore humans bad lolz”.

13 hours ago, joevar said:

for the record, im not suggesting edelgard is zephiel 2.0 . its just theres more similarity than roy. thats it.

its like comparing edelgard as Red apple, and zephiel as green apple, while roy is watermelon.
what, you dont get it? good. lol

Makes sense.

Share this post


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

Edelgard constantly talks about how “the path before me... is covered in blood” and stuff like that, and in Silver Snow and Verdant Wind when you have her on the ground in the throne room she says something along the lines of “All across this land, people are killing each other. If you don’t strike me down, it will continue.” or something like that, and she mentions quite frequently that she has to steel herself to ascend the imperial throne, and considering what she does when on the imperial throne, it’s pretty heavily implied she has to prepare herself for all the death and destruction she will cause.

Meanwhile Zephiel is just like “daddy issues therefore humans bad lolz”.

well yes, i do think edelgard has more dimension in her character than people give credit for... but thats already been discussed.

-----------------------------------------

so, another unpopular opinion: FE fandom is toxic... oh wait, thats a fact not opinion

serious one: FE should start inserting bad ending. why? because not every war always ends in a good note/outcome , they have done split route in the beginning of the game why not introduce split ending (again), theres already dialogue option in 3H (no matter how hollow the option is), and RPG element keep getting added more and more in FE

but i dont think people want to spend that much time only to get shitty ending and have to spend another 50+ hours to get better ending just because they pick the wrong side (the geneeral audience, not the fandom. fandom can get crazy number of playthrough how many times they want)

Edited by joevar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joevar said:

serious one: FE should start inserting bad ending. why? because not every war always ends in a good note/outcome , they have done split route in the beginning of the game why not introduce split ending (again), theres already dialogue option in 3H (no matter how hollow the option is), and RPG element keep getting added more and more in FE

but i dont think people want to spend that much time only to get shitty ending and have to spend another 50+ hours to get better ending just because they pick the wrong side (the geneeral audience, not the fandom. fandom can get crazy number of playthrough how many times they want)

That’s a nice idea in theory but it goes against the gameplay. We’re winning all these battles, otherwise we’re not progressing, so why should we lose the war? I know there’s that old saying in all, but when it’s a video game....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

8 minutes ago, Sooks said:

That’s a nice idea in theory but it goes against the gameplay. We’re winning all these battles, otherwise we’re not progressing, so why should we lose the war? I know there’s that old saying in all, but when it’s a video game....

oh wait, thats where you're reading it wrong. bad ending not as in you lose the war. but the ending / epilogue that tells the "outcome" of the war..

so, a simple and crude example: you pick a tyranny as your friends thinking it would turn well and just, only for them at the end to slaughter/oppress citizen of the land because anyone who would dare to question them already been slain by your army.. and all sort of disaster (famine, plague, etc) become uncontained due to winning side not caring type.

 

in 3 house and fates no matter who you pick, its basically: the world come to peace once more, and the winning side rule justly... (i mean, if everyone can rule justly, why go to war at all to the point losing side vanish from land....)

Edited by joevar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joevar said:

oh wait, thats where you're reading it wrong. bad ending not as in you lose the war. but the ending / epilogue that tells the "outcome" of the war..

so, a simple and crude example: you pick a tyranny as your friends thinking it would turn well and just, only for them at the end to slaughter/oppress citizen of the land because anyone who would dare to question them already been slain by your army.. and all sort of disaster (famine, plague, etc) become uncontained due to winning side not caring type.

 

Sounds like you could almost make this work as a “Pick choice C, watch ending, get Game Over, no credits, game reloads at the start screen, save file intact” situation. This might be the best FE players would put up with.

I’m also being reminded of Radiant Historia’s many little bad endings. You’re okay with letting a little girl abuse her shamanic power? She, out of uncontrolled love, locks you in a pocket dimension, the world is doomed without you, the end. Whoops. Fortunately, a quick time travel via the White Chronicle lets you go back to before you spoiled her, now you know to put your foot down. Byleth sounds like they could’ve had this fun. 

Share this post


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

Sounds like you could almost make this work as a “Pick choice C, watch ending, get Game Over, no credits, game reloads at the start screen, save file intact” situation. This might be the best FE players would put up with.

I’m also being reminded of Radiant Historia’s many little bad endings. You’re okay with letting a little girl abuse her shamanic power? She, out of uncontrolled love, locks you in a pocket dimension, the world is doomed without you, the end. Whoops. Fortunately, a quick time travel via the White Chronicle lets you go back to before you spoiled her, now you know to put your foot down. Byleth sounds like they could’ve had this fun. 

yes, it baffles many people divine pulse is canon but rarely get used as plot point more.

and i like Radiant Historia!  imo a good example of time travel done right

Edited by joevar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, joevar said:

in 3 house and fates no matter who you pick, its basically: the world come to peace once more, and the winning side rule justly... (i mean, if everyone can rule justly, why go to war at all to the point losing side vanish from land....)

I would think it's because the game has to give a sense of finality. That's why it always go for what is mostly the best outcome, no matter the route. Barring some future work, we're effectively done with the world, so best to move on on a high note that everything will be okay.

Maybe that's why our world has yet to have a happy ending... because we're far from reaching the end... maybe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, joevar said:

  

oh wait, thats where you're reading it wrong. bad ending not as in you lose the war. but the ending / epilogue that tells the "outcome" of the war..

so, a simple and crude example: you pick a tyranny as your friends thinking it would turn well and just, only for them at the end to slaughter/oppress citizen of the land because anyone who would dare to question them already been slain by your army.. and all sort of disaster (famine, plague, etc) become uncontained due to winning side not caring type.

 

in 3 house and fates no matter who you pick, its basically: the world come to peace once more, and the winning side rule justly... (i mean, if everyone can rule justly, why go to war at all to the point losing side vanish from land....)

Oh, oops. Still though, bad endings aren’t satisfying, with some exceptions, so unless you can really justify it there’s no reason we should have them, per say.

28 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I would think it's because the game has to give a sense of finality. That's why it always go for what is mostly the best outcome, no matter the route. Barring some future work, we're effectively done with the world, so best to move on on a high note that everything will be okay.

Maybe that's why our world has yet to have a happy ending... because we're far from reaching the end... maybe...

So the lord needs to get on it and start progressing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cynthia Stan said:

I think it's implied she can't possible do that, in order to reform her country she needs the support of TWSITD, which only helped her in game because of her plan to destroy the church. 

She only seems to need their military support. If anything Arundel being he open ally is outright hurting her credibility by being so heavy on the territory he rules. The Agarthans are going to subvert her authority and supplement with their own. Now their is the matter that she wouldn't be as easily able to exterminate them without using the war to find her hideout, but it's made quite clear by the fact that she never even does that onscreen that exterminating the Agrathans isn't her goal, getting rid of Rhea is, despite the fact that live and let live seems imminently possible. And even if imagines it's not, not starting the war would still put her in a stronger position militarily, as launching a surprise attack on Garrek Mach turned everyone else on the continent (and even some nations beyond the continent depending on the routes) against her. Letting the Kingdom or the Church launch the first attack and making them the warmongers would highly increase the chances of the alliances joining her. Instead in the one route where the Alliances doesn't actively join the Kingdom and stay neutral to the conflict, her reaction is to launch an unprovoked invasion of them too. Edelgard talks about how the way to her future is paved with blood and all, but the reality is that she keeps choosing the most violent actions that cause more people to turn against her at every opportunity without ever trying more diplomatic or peaceful means. The only differences between her and a typical a Fire Emblem villain is the lack of a sadistic and or genocidal streak and a prettier character design.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

I would think it's because the game has to give a sense of finality. That's why it always go for what is mostly the best outcome, no matter the route. Barring some future work, we're effectively done with the world, so best to move on on a high note that everything will be okay.

thats where multiple endings come to play. FE6 already did that afterall, altho thats more of incomplete ending than different good/bad ending

3 hours ago, Sooks said:

Oh, oops. Still though, bad endings aren’t satisfying, with some exceptions, so unless you can really justify it there’s no reason we should have them, per say.

one of possible reason being: variety.
or put it other way, why should there be multiple route in Fates and 3H in the beginning? what justify it?

did you maybe thinking im suggesting FE become a tragic story that will end with misery? i was not

i dont feel there should be big justification for that. if its not satisfying, just make good ending alongside bad ending.

also bad endings can make good ending stand out more.

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

The only differences between her and a typical a Fire Emblem villain is the lack of a sadistic and or genocidal streak and a prettier character design.

you get to play as her, and being playable as protagonist in FE means, her ending would be another "happy ending", no matter how people can argue with valid points it could end up the other way. hence in previous posts why i want multiple ending with one of it being bad ending.

just like how it implied if theres no Byleth, both dimitri and edelgard will meet their demise in unsatisfying way. but turn the perspective around

Share this post


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

thats where multiple endings come to play. FE6 already did that afterall, altho thats more of incomplete ending than different good/bad ending

Exactly. It's not the same. Even then, despite its incompleteness, Binding Blade's "default" ending still gives a sense of finality. Zephiel was taken down, the war ended, peace returned to Elibe. Now true, Binding Blade was also not subtle in stating the ending still left loose ends. Brunya escaped, taking Idunn with her. Does Jahn even shows up at any point before Ch23? Anyway, while it's clear some thing remained unresolved, the larger picture was dealt with. The bit with Brunya and Idunn can be chalked to being a sequel hook, or a sign that there may be another ending. Context is important. Binding Blade took many things from Archanea, of which Mystery did had a default/true ending division.

That's another point to consider. If the developers intend to keep working with the same world, they can potentially leave hints that things aren't over just yet, or that they'll be fine now. Even then, individual works are given a sense of idealistic finality. It doesn't always happen, but usually it what they trend to. Also look at the Tellius duology, where we know the developers did intended a second game. Yet, you can take PoR alone and still have a sense of finality, thus it presents itself as a hopeful one. Only then does RD rolls out and we found out that, no, the story isn't over yet and things weren't as presented by PoR's ending.

Though Binding Blade itself did gave us a tease. Its ending narration states, paraphrasing: "Eventually the nations of Elibe would unite under one banner, but that's a story for another time". We've yet to see that story. Or RD, with Sephiran reporting to Ashunera that war once again threatens to engulf Tellius. Even then, the events are clearly separated by a big gap of time, so we can consider them as "stories of their own not tied to the stories we just finished". The point is giving each entry a stopping point, and so it errs on the idealist side of the spectrum.

Granted, bad endings can also give that sense of finality, but usually after going through all the effort to reach an ending, it's likely best to lean on something that does feel good to have reached. Hence a good ending overall. And why games that only have the one ending also aim for it to be a good one.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

hmm im sure we're running on circles here like we're not agreeing but also agreeing at the same time...

if its okay to left loose ends, then why not a bad ending that practically a big loose ends that hints that things can go in better direction at some point ? (and it is indeed you can since its bad ending thats part of multiple ending, you just not fulfill that requirement nor you pick the optimal solution)
bad ending could be "things have calmed a bit, but storm still brewing somewhere else" , or "casualties and collateral damage are so great that life cant return to how it was before". its just matter how dire between things left hanging by your example, compared to bad ending by my example

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Anyway, while it's clear some thing remained unresolved, the larger picture was dealt with.

what, did you think my version of "bad ending" means story ended halfway? no. you can still beat the big bad villain but still achieve bad end.

if a toxic mushroom is a villain, then the final would be plucking it. But...
1. then because you dont know it can grow back if you throw it carelessly and it grows somewhere else, potentially your neighbor place, and in long term it spread back to your place (bad end)
2. you burn what you pluck before dump it, and spray some killer spray where it taken roots before to prevent any possible regrowing(good end)
3. turns out its edible so you farm it to become your source of food and income (secret end)

point in case. it still gives you the finality of ridding the mushroom in both case

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

And why games that only have the one ending also aim for it to be a good one.

didnt i already said, bad ending in multiple ending story, because even i dont want FE to be tragic misarable story at the end? if you feel bad ending is not final, then we have another thats Final's final.

practically many games have it. practically every games that have bad endings still gives closure, some gives sequel, some dont.
why cant you see it happen in FE in some capacity (since FE going more mainstream, and start inserting popular ideas).. 🤔

Edited by joevar

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...