Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sooks said:

It’s not even based on what they say to you in the monastery half the time, shoutouts to Shamir having a lost item that is referenced in one support.

That's pretty terrible.

But yeah the system just encourages wasting time spamming all the items on everyone til' someone accepts it.

Edited by Samz707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

That's pretty terrible.

But yeah the system just encourages wasting time spamming all the items on everyone til' someone accepts it.

It would have been nice if there was some sort of penalty for getting it wrong, maybe one of those small support decreases you can occasionally get like “how could you think this belongs to me!?” that doesn’t really affect much unless you get them in bulk by spamming every item you have. Although that might not pair very well with individual sucky items like Shamir’s random-thing-unless-you’ve-seen-her-Leonie-support since you could just throw them around and the minimal decreases wouldn’t matter when they’re not concentrated on one support.

Edited by Sooks

Share this post


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

It would have been nice if there was some sort of penalty for getting it wrong, maybe one of those small support decreases you can occasionally get like “how could you think this belongs to me!?” that doesn’t really affect much unless you get them in bulk by spamming every item you have. Although that might not pair very well with individual sucky items like Shamir’s random-thing-unless-you’ve-seen-her-Leonie-support since you could just throw them around and the minimal decreases wouldn’t matter when they’re not concentrated on one support.

That's something I thought of that I referenced in my last post but the issue is that it doesn't address the core problem: returning lost items to the right person isn't a fun process. Penalizing players for choosing the wrong item doesn't make getting it right more fun, it just encourages players to use a guide.

Share this post


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

On TH lost items: while people may start out trying to actually figure out what item goes to who, eventually most players just resort to spamming each item at whoever they come across until the person accepts one. Streamers and LPs I've seen have all ended up here. Some items are more obvious than others who they go to (who would a painting of Rhea go to other than Cyril?), some characters are more obvious what might belong to them, but there are too many characters to remember all these details about them and some items are really abstract or could just realistically go to multiple different people, sometimes 10 or more. It's also funny when Leonie criticizes people for losing things despite losing just as much as anyone else.

Honestly, I think the idea is dead on arrival. It's a pure fetch quest and while I just sat here for a few minutes trying to think of ways to make it more interactive, everything I thought of didn't actually feel like it would be any fun and would instead just encourage people to use a guide. I was literally going to start this paragraph with "I don't think it's a terrible idea in concept" but couldn't actually think of anything to support that statement.

If all players trend as I did (and I expect many do), then the step after spamming every item is to soon lose interest entirely and never bother returning any lost items. The rewards just aren't high enough no justify the minor hassle of it. Not when giving them any regular old item as a gift or taking then to dinner achieves the same results. I think for it to work they definitely should have hardcapped it at exactly one lost item for every character in the game. Because there are just too many damn items to scroll through and analyze and match to a given character. Actually scratch that. There are too many characters in the game for even that. They should have made it exactly one item available on any playthrough for your chosen house only, plus some staff. So there's only a dozen or so items to sift through and then a larger reward for doing so, like the one stat stat boosters you get from the garden. That, I think, would be a lot more fun. Especially given if it's the house your with you have some clues as to who give what to since you will know those characters. Though doing that would take away what I expect most people use it for, which is to reduce the requirements to get students from other houses. Still, refer back to point 1, returning lost items doesn't do much more than giving people a bunch of feathers or a burger.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unsure if this is unpopular or not, so please feel free to correct me. The other day a group of people I was a part of were talking about how fe7/fe6 being remade into a game like fe4 would be amazing and how cool it would be. I said otherwise, and I was promptly ganged up on about how I was objectively/subjectively wrong. Your thoughts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bhoop said:

Unsure if this is unpopular or not, so please feel free to correct me. The other day a group of people I was a part of were talking about how fe7/fe6 being remade into a game like fe4 would be amazing and how cool it would be. I said otherwise, and I was promptly ganged up on about how I was objectively/subjectively wrong. Your thoughts? 

Typically the popular opinion, as far as I've seen, is that such a thing would be a good idea, though I personally agree with you. I think the people who want a combined FE6/7 aren't actually thinking of how it would work and the result would be terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion of the combined remakes is irrelevant since IS will never pass up a chance to make more money. After remaking Binding Blade, they just need to reuse the assets in the remake of Blazing Blade and will make a huge profit. Same tactic that Capcom used with RE2 and RE3 for example (both the originals and the remakes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Florete said:

Typically the popular opinion, as far as I've seen, is that such a thing would be a good idea, though I personally agree with you. I think the people who want a combined FE6/7 aren't actually thinking of how it would work and the result would be terrible.

I don't see how the results would be terrible. Sure there's not enough related characters to pull off a Genealogy style inheritance, but there's other fun things they could do by combining them, mixing units from both games you trained in the Arena at the very least could be fun and not something that I could be done in seperate remakes (assuming they bring the Arena back, which I hope they do). And at the very least two games for the price of 1 would be appreciated. But as per what Mao just said, I really don't expect them to do that as there's zero economic motivation to do so. But I can't see any inherent reason why it would make for a worse game overall. Like sure it could be done badly, as any thing could, by required you to play Blazing Blade before Binding Blade or something, bit I trust they're smart enough to not do something outrageously stupid. Then again these are the people who out the Three Houses route spllit fifty hours after you choose your route so I guess they could fuck it up. Still as I said, I see no inherent reason why bundling the games would make them worse.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

Unsure if this is unpopular or not, so please feel free to correct me. The other day a group of people I was a part of were talking about how fe7/fe6 being remade into a game like fe4 would be amazing and how cool it would be. I said otherwise, and I was promptly ganged up on about how I was objectively/subjectively wrong. Your thoughts? 

I'd think 6 and 7 being remade into a game like 4 would not be good. The characters and such are not suited for that, only a small portion of the cast of 6 is directly related to that of 7. It just wouldn't work very well.

Share this post


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

I don't see how the results would be terrible. Sure there's not enough related characters to pull off a Genealogy style inheritance, but there's other fun things they could do by combining them, mixing units from both games you trained in the Arena at the very least could be fun and not something that I could be done in seperate remakes. And at the very least two games for the price of 1 would be appreciated. But as per what Mao just said, I really don't expect them to do that as there's zero economic motivation to do so. But I can't see any inherent reason why it would make for a worse game overall. Like sure it could be done badly, as any thing could, by required you to play Blazing Blade before Binding Blade or something, bit I trust they're smart enough to not do something outrageously stupid. Then again these are the people who out the Three Houses route spllit fifty hours after you choose your route so I guess they could fuck it up. Still as I said, I see no inherent reason why bundling the games would make them worse.

If it's the price of one game, neither side will be a full remake. If both sides are a full remake, the price will be higher.

Binding and Blazing are really only connected by taking place in the same continent. The stories and casts are almost entirely different. Trying to connect them would end up feeling forced for the sake of fanservice. At best you'd end up feeling like you bought two games in one package, at which point...just make it two games. (And if we're just "bundling" two games together as you said, that's not a Genealogy-style remake, that's just making two games and selling them in one package)

People only come up with this idea because of Genealogy, but that's ignoring the fact that Genealogy was built from the ground up to have its generation split, which clearly isn't the case with Elibe games. I'm willing to bet that if it were to actually happen, despite how many people say they want it now, it would ultimately get criticized as a bad decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Florete said:

If it's the price of one game, neither side will be a full remake. If both sides are a full remake, the price will be higher.

Binding and Blazing are really only connected by taking place in the same continent. The stories and casts are almost entirely different. Trying to connect them would end up feeling forced for the sake of fanservice. At best you'd end up feeling like you bought two games in one package, at which point...just make it two games. (And if we're just "bundling" two games together as you said, that's not a Genealogy-style remake, that's just making two games and selling them in one package)

People only come up with this idea because of Genealogy, but that's ignoring the fact that Genealogy was built from the ground up to have its generation split, which clearly isn't the case with Elibe games. I'm willing to bet that if it were to actually happen, despite how many people say they want it now, it would ultimately get criticized as a bad decision.

Well yes, literally trying to implement an inheritance mechanic like Genealogy isn't just a bad idea, it's just something that isn't realistically possible without retconning waaay more family relations between unconnected characters. But both games together with certain lines of dialogue being altered for continuity and a cross game Arena would work fine. That'd be at minimum. Other stuff they could do could be Radiant Dawn transfer bonuses and substitute characters for some Binding Blade characters, which in essence wouldn't actually take anything away from the games, but people might complain anyway.

 

And I wouldnt even say the "Neither side would be a full remake" argument would hold any ground. As the chapters, characters and game engine are all already there when remaking them. We aren't on the SNES anymore, they'd really have no motivation to cut chapters or characters, and that's the only thing they could do to make it less of a remake. Bundling them would mean probably no extra content though where's seperate remakes might have some more of that (though in this day and age all the extra content would probably come in the form of DLC anyway).

It's all a moot point though, because why charge em for one game when you can charge em for two is ultimately the logic that would prevail no matter how much we may or may not want them to do it.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And I wouldnt even say the "Neither side would be a full remake" argument would hold any ground. As the chapters, characters and game engine are all already there when remaking them. We aren't on the SNES anymore, they'd really have no motivation to cut chapters or characters, and that's the only thing they could do to make it less of a remake.

Well, there's time and budget. Game development isn't what it was 20 years ago, unless you're saying they should just make SNES/GBA-style remakes of Binding and Blazing at which point I'd ask what the point of remaking them even is in the first place.

7 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It's all a moot point though, because why charge em for one game when you can charge em for two is ultimately the logic that would prevail no matter how much we may or may not want them to do it.

Hear me out: I'm a consumer, naturally I'm all for being consumer-friendly, but this logic in this context (and this is far from the first time I've come across it) just comes across as selfish to me. You're asking a company to make two full, complete products and then sell them to you as one. Would it be awesome if they did that? Yeah, of course, assuming neither one's quality was compromised for the other. But I can't sit here and pretend it's something that should happen, that they're greedy for selling two games as two games.

But then I continue to defend Fates' sales model so what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fe7 and fe6 don’t have enough of a link between them besides being prequel and sequel to justify selling their remakes together, unless they’re remade separately and it’s a packaged rerelease in the far future, and especially not for the price of one game.

As far as whether or not it’s a good idea, financially it obviously isn’t, but for the quality of the games it might also reflect poorly if they give themselves the amount of time they would use for one remake to remake two games instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Florete said:

If it's the price of one game, neither side will be a full remake. If both sides are a full remake, the price will be higher.

If a studio like Toys for Bob or Vicarious Visions can remake a trio of PS1 titles (Spyro Reignited Trilogy and Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy, respectively), at two-thirds the typical new Switch game price, then it's absolutely realistic that Intelligent Systems could remake two GBA titles as a full-priced Switch game. I don't necessarily think it will happen this way, but it's a technical and practical possibility. If anything, I don't think any one GBAFE title has enough content, as it stands, to justify a full-price Switch remake.

Anyway, I first interpreted this

1 hour ago, Bhoop said:

Unsure if this is unpopular or not, so please feel free to correct me. The other day a group of people I was a part of were talking about how fe7/fe6 being remade into a game like fe4 would be amazing and how cool it would be. I said otherwise, and I was promptly ganged up on about how I was objectively/subjectively wrong. Your thoughts? 

As a remake of Elibe where every chapter involves siezing multiple castles. Which... no, I don't think anyone wants that.

Here's a big caveat: I don't think a "combined Elibe" remake should require you to play FE7 before FE6. Rather, it should offer all routes (Roy's, Lyn's, Eliwood's, Hector's) from the start - each with three difficulty levels, and a unified ranking system. If it takes them time to balance the highest difficulty, or Hector's Story in general, then I wouldn't mind a post-release "free-LC", like they did with Maddening Mode. It'd be nice to have the Trial Maps in the main game, but I wouldn't even mind seeing them done (hopefully, with a few new FE7-based ones) as later DLC.

21 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It's all a moot point though, because why charge em for one game when you can charge em for two is ultimately the logic that would prevail no matter how much we may or may not want them to do it.

Ain't that the truth of it, though.

12 minutes ago, Florete said:

Hear me out: I'm a consumer, naturally I'm all for being consumer-friendly, but this logic in this context (and this is far from the first time I've come across it) just comes across as selfish to me. You're asking a company to make two full, complete products and then sell them to you as one. Would it be awesome if they did that? Yeah, of course, assuming neither one's quality was compromised for the other. But I can't sit here and pretend it's something that should happen, that they're greedy for selling two games as two games.

For my part, I've simply come to expect more content out of Switch games than out of GBA games. Selfish, unrealistic, entitled? Eh, maybe. But that's really where I'm sitting right now. Plausibly, either FE6 or FE7 could extend itself, mechanically and story-wise, to justify itself as an independent full-price Switch game. But it'd take some stretching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

If a studio like Toys for Bob or Vicarious Visions can remake a trio of PS1 titles (Spyro Reignited Trilogy and Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy, respectively), at two-thirds the typical new Switch game price, then it's absolutely realistic that Intelligent Systems could remake two GBA titles as a full-priced Switch game. I don't necessarily think it will happen this way, but it's a technical and practical possibility. If anything, I don't think any one GBAFE title has enough content, as it stands, to justify a full-price Switch remake.

Those are remasters, not remakes.

3 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

For my part, I've simply come to expect more content out of Switch games than out of GBA games. Selfish, unrealistic, entitled? Eh, maybe. But that's really where I'm sitting right now. Plausibly, either FE6 or FE7 could extend itself, mechanically and story-wise, to justify itself as an independent full-price Switch game. But it'd take some stretching.

That's not what I was calling selfish at all. If anything, that's exactly my point. Look at SoV, that's not just a Gaiden upscale. An actual, full remake of Binding Blade on the Switch won't just be FE6 with prettier graphics.

Share this post


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

Well, there's time and budget. Game development isn't what it was 20 years ago, unless you're saying they should just make SNES/GBA-style remakes of Binding and Blazing at which point I'd ask what the point of remaking them even is in the first place.

Time and budget, sure, but the resources here wouldn't actually be that large considering both the games are already quite similar in terms of gameplay. The design for all the maps is already there along with the script and even in terms of stats and enemy placement they wouldn't need to change a whole lot, unless they're going to change the core gameplay by introducing skills or something. Basically a lot of the design work is done for the project. It's assembling it all together that needs to be done. Graphics and character art would probably be the most costly part of it. It would be more expensive that doing one game stand alone of course, but not horrendously more expensive or time consuming. Both together would be quite a bit cheaper than making an original game I reckon.

1 hour ago, Florete said:

Hear me out: I'm a consumer, naturally I'm all for being consumer-friendly, but this logic in this context (and this is far from the first time I've come across it) just comes across as selfish to me. You're asking a company to make two full, complete products and then sell them to you as one. Would it be awesome if they did that? Yeah, of course, assuming neither one's quality was compromised for the other. But I can't sit here and pretend it's something that should happen, that they're greedy for selling two games as two games.

Take a look at my comments again. I never actually said I expect or demand them do it. My feeling is exactly yours. Sure it'd be great if they did, but I don't think it's going to happen.

1 hour ago, Florete said:

Well, there's time and budget. Game development isn't what it was 20 years ago, unless you're saying they should just make SNES/GBA-style remakes of Binding and Blazing at which point I'd ask what the point of remaking them even is in the first place.

Going back to this, while remaking the GBA games in the GBA style would be a waste, I would actually love it if they did use the already existing GBA engine to make some new original games on the cheap as download only titles.

Share this post


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

Take a look at my comments again. I never actually said I expect or demand them do it. My feeling is exactly yours. Sure it'd be great if they did, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Then maybe we weren't on the same page from the beginning. I'm just saying that if we get remakes of them, I want them to be proper remakes. Realistically, that won't happen if they're remade as one game, so I don't want IS to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see I can still provoke discussion. Thanks for the responses. Its something I've been mulling over the past week and didn't really know how to put my feelings in check. 

I should probably contribute a bit as well, but I'll try to keep it short. I think an inheritance mechanic like fe4 could work, but it doesn't feel like there are enough characters for it to make a large difference. there are maybe 15?ish character that I can see in fe6 benefitting from fe7 parents, including canon relationships/pairings like Karla/Bartre. Even then, it doesn't feel like all 15 of those characters have a parent from fe7. 
Please let me know if I'm missing something here. I would rather pay for two very well made games, regardless of how much my wallet would hurt.

Edited by Bhoop

Share this post


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

Then maybe we weren't on the same page from the beginning. I'm just saying that if we get remakes of them, I want them to be proper remakes. Realistically, that won't happen if they're remade as one game, so I don't want IS to try.

Well really I don't think they should bother much remaking the GBA games at all. Jugdral is in far more need for it and I'd even say a Tellius remaster should go ahead of the GBA games given how hard they are to play nowadays (and how we in the West were denied Path of Radiance's actual hard mode along with some other Path of Radiance gameplay issues). An official translation of Binding Blade released on the Eshop like NES Shadow Dragon would probably please me as much as as remake (though I similarly doubt that'd happen as it has a lot more text than NES Shadow Dragon). The GBA games are already fine in terms of gameplay (which I doubt they would radically change with a remake), unless they had a tonne of trial mode maps or new protagonist campaigns then they'd basically just be remaking them to have them in 3D with voice acting. And in terms of graphical presentation they already look fantastic in 2D. I guess online Link Arena would be nice to have. So, yeah, I guess I'm back to the opinion I said I didn't have before, in that they should be remade in GBA style (that is more a remaster than a remake).

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BlaBla and BinBla remakes would be much better suited for Tellius-style safe file transfers. Not the "lv. 20 capped stats" part of it, since there's so few shared characters, there's way more time between the games than between PoR and RD, and you'd have to change the level scaling drastically, but the idea that certain choices or pairings in BlaBla give some modest buffs in the "sequel". Pairing Hector with Farina or Florina gives Lilina a pegasus upon promotion. If Canas and Nino get their A support (in which they, or rather Nino and Canas's wife, realize that they might have family ties), you could unlock conversations (and/or an additional support) between Hugh and Lugh+Raigh. Stuff like that, although I just made those specific examples up on the fly.

Putting them in one game simply doesn't make sense, because as @Florete said, unlike Geneology, the stories of the two Elibe games are hardly connected. More isn't automatically better.

--

I think that actually might be an unpopular FE opinion of mine. Oftentimes, less is more - in game mechanics as well as in writing.

Edited by ping

Share this post


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

I think that actually might be an unpopular FE opinion of mine. Oftentimes, less is more - in game mechanics as well as in writing.

Considering your fondness for FE6, that I can see why you'd have such a sentiment. And PoR is simpler on the story side too.

I can't say I entirely disagree, Old Mystery is probably my preferred title of the SNES era. Although I'd say it has less to do with Jugdrali complexity, as it is Genealogical size and Thracian jagged edges, both of which don't entirely dissuade me from returning to them, but they do create hesitation to do so.

I would hope for room for IS to offer both a crisper, less intense experience, and one that does force you to slow down and think due to meaningful complexity. The BR-CQ gameplay divide was a nice idea, as much as I wish BR didn't have a midgame difficulty and map design collapse and a lategame difficulty spike with some shoddy maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna sound insane, but I think Azura should've been the de-facto main character of Fates and Corrin just not be in the game at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jingilator said:

I'm gonna sound insane, but I think Azura should've been the de-facto main character of Fates and Corrin just not be in the game at all.

Azura's far too lazy to be a main character. That girl's got no initiative at all.

Share this post


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

Azura's far too lazy to be a main character. That girl's got no initiative at all.

well, that's just fates being badly written, isn't it? i think it could be pulled off. she could even still be a songstress (better at surviving hits though, i guess).

speaking of writing, i just finished new mystery again and it's definitely my second favourite FE AND i really enjoy the writing, specially of the avatar and katarina, in it. i think i am nearly alone in this opinion with how unpopular it is, but i don't care. people call this game's main story a lot of lore dumping, but i don't think that does it justice, and that's only really true in chapters 11 to 14, which are the game's low point in gameplay too (not a fan of the sudden difficulty spike - and then chapter 15 is immediately easier lol).

Edited by Axie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should write a better  story with better story telling and world building. I like avatar but THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY. It’s incredibly immersion breaking when you see an axe user like Edelgard fighting an axe wielding ennemis herself and counters with a petty dagger of all things. Its even more so when you as a player role playing the MC and going with flow as better ideas than the character living there themselves. Just to CLARIFY: I am not against LINEAR and STRAIGHTFORWARD stories but I like if my ideas is better to be told why my ideas is refuted.Like the blue Lion choice of invasion but being relegated to the default. I get but why waste text prompts and choice if I DON’T HAVE A CHOICE. Byleth would have benefited WAY BETTER being fully voiced in personality and as an actual Ptotagonist than an Avatar 

Edited by NaotoUzumaki

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...