Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

Heroes was released before Shadows of Valentia and Warriors had been in development since before the release of Fates.

My point still stands that they're not even trying regardless 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DarkSage861 said:

My point still stands that they're not even trying regardless 

Being bitterly disappointed with modern Fire Emblem is a pretty standard feeling for a Fire Emblem fan, but it seems disingenuous to put the blame solely on Shadows of Valentia for things that were in motion since before it even had a chance to influence public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DarkSage861 said:

Three Houses...that was just depressing

What's wrong with Three Houses that makes it depressing? And I completely disagree that they stopped trying. If they had stopped trying to make a good game, they would not have collaborated with Koei Techmo to ensure they could create a game on the Switch, nor would they have delayed the game for a Summer launch if they did not want their title to succeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is in some aspects but that more of a shonen trope than anything.They should make the avatar a nobody. Besides on 3Houses wikia they started developing ideas on it on the 3ds. If anything is that they try new stuff but don’t fix what they didn’t fix prior. Also most Japanese avatar are silent protagonist a la persona while in these it’s more of D&D do really it’s that and culture differences in what is an avatar. They really need an oversea dev team to help them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially unpopular (but maybe not because I kinda see it happening already but am not sure if people are just being more vocal):

Three Houses will age poorly. A few years from now, people will start questioning why TH was so well loved. On the other hand, fans will also start to wonder why Fates was so hated and realize it wasn't as bad as people made it to be.

 

Also...I feel like I don't really see people hating on Freyja??? People hated Camilla for what she represents and IS created a new character with almost the exact same archetype (doting sister that is obsessed with her brother with 'two big reasons' for why she's so popular). She's now becoming one of the most popular OCs from Heroes but people are weirdly ok with her actions/popularity despite her bland and bare boned backstory. Is it because she's presented as a villain or do we just have lower expectations for Heroes OCs?

Share this post


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

 She's now becoming one of the most popular OCs from Heroes but people are weirdly ok with her actions/popularity despite her bland and bare boned backstory. Is it because she's presented as a villain or do we just have lower expectations for Heroes OCs?

Design and art that makes people "go to horny jail," a laughable story and excuse that's so meme-worthy it becomes enjoyable, and a pretty solid unit in-game. It's like the Heroes popularity trifecta. And yeah, no one really takes the Heroes story seriously or expects anything good out of it. I enjoy the Heroes storylines and characters, but mostly because of the head-canons I can make with them, not for their own sake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take, don't know if it's unpopular or not though:

Avatars are great, and Corrin is one of, if not the best at their Avatar role: Let the player be involved in the story, be the main character. (Not defending their questionable choices though, but I blame that at Fates writing)

Robin is the worst Avatar out of Mark, Robin, Corrin and Byleth (haven't play New Mystery, so I don't know about Kris). Their character is non-existent, but at the same time not really? If they want to do a blank character, do it all the way like Byleth or Mark. And their involvment in the story is half-assed too: Corrin and Byleth are great, Mark is pretty much removable so I don't mind them.

Share this post


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

Here's my take, don't know if it's unpopular or not though:

Avatars are great, and Corrin is one of, if not the best at their Avatar role: Let the player be involved in the story, be the main character. (Not defending their questionable choices though, but I blame that at Fates writing)

Robin is the worst Avatar out of Mark, Robin, Corrin and Byleth (haven't play New Mystery, so I don't know about Kris). Their character is non-existent, but at the same time not really? If they want to do a blank character, do it all the way like Byleth or Mark. And their involvment in the story is half-assed too: Corrin and Byleth are great, Mark is pretty much removable so I don't mind them.

Not sure if it's unpopular, but it's definitely not often seen! I think the more popular takes are that Mark and Robin are the better of the two Avatars, followed by Byleth, Corrin, and then Kris. Mark is usually seen as the best because the story doesn't revolve around them. Robin is seen as good in the first two thirds of the game, and then annoyingly central in the final third. Byleth is seen as a middle ground, where the plot involves them, but also has enough room for others like the House Lords. Their blank-slate characterization and emoting seems to make people hate Byleth, but I see it as a nice way of story integration. Corrin is seen as something of a Mary Sue/Gary Stu, where all of the plot centers around them even when it shouldn't (especially considering how Azura should hold just as much if not more relevance), and Kris is just bad for some reason. I haven't played FE12, so I can't explain that one. 

Personally I find Robin to be the best. Their central to the plot but never outshine Lucina and Chrom, have solid characterization outside of being just an Avatar (they're optimistic, slightly air-headed, terrible cooks. Despite being trusting of allies (aka Tharja and Henry and the like), Robin may have a slight depreciation of their self, as seen in M!Robin's supports with Chrom. They're open to learning new techniques and styles of teaching (M!Robin with Lon'qu, and F!Robin with Priam) as well as hilariously petty at times (both with Maribelle and at least M!Robin with Anna in their A-Support)). Not to mention the fridge brilliance of being an Avatar in their game - not only are they an Avatar for the player, they're one for the Big Bad as well. (Byleth is the only one who is similar in that they represent both definitions.) I also don't agree with their involvement being half-way, either. I think Robin was IntSys trying to find the balance between making the Player Character/Avatar integral to the story in a way Mark and Kris really weren't but also not outshining the Lord(s) of the game. To quote you, to let the player be involved in the story. It's just that Robin was a main character and not the main character. And they did it well. You get to be the Big Bad without being the Bad Guy, if that makes sense. 

Corrin on the other hand...I respect what IntSys was trying to do, but I don't really think it succeeded as well as they thought it should. IntSys pushed the Avatar idea to the brink, combining the roles of Lord, Avatar, and Manakete (and Chosen One) into one character, and the character buckled under the weight IMO. Had they chosen two of those, Corrin would be fine. But all three was too much. Add to that the fact that everyone listens and almost immediately trusts Corrin, and the game sort of breaks itself. (Unless you subscribe to the head-canon that Corrin may be subconsciously using magic like Anankos does to make everyone like them.) I'm not saying Corrin is the worst Avatar, or even a bad one, simply that they're tied for third with Mark in my books, under Robin and Byleth. (Mark would probably be second, but they fade out of the story for the most part, rendering them useless in a lot of ways. Either have the Avatar be a part of the story, or don't have one, Storm it!) 

 

Anyways, my unpopular opinion of the day - I like Lyn's story. I'm a sucker for well done "hidden lineage" storylines, and I think the scope of Lyn's story makes it a solid sweet-spot for me. It's large enough to feel important, small enough that I don't roll my eyes in the "of course she's the Lost Princess and Chosen One" trope, and intimate enough that I care - Lyn isn't fighting to save her land or her people, not really. She's fighting to see her grandfather. That's touching.

As a whole, I enjoy FE7's story immensely. Part of it is absolutely nostalgia, but another part of is the fact that the scope of the game as a whole never feels too large. It's the story of a young woman trying to reconcile with her long-lost family. It's the story of a young man seeking out his missing father, and finding love along the way. It's the story of a best friend who must come to terms with his changing roles in the world while also helping his friends through their own journeys. I may love FE9's "rebellion against the Empire" story done to perfection, or Awakening's "optimism and self-determination in the face of a predestined apocalypse," but something about FE7's story resonates with me. 

Edited by Use the Falchion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, zuibangde said:

Potentially unpopular (but maybe not because I kinda see it happening already but am not sure if people are just being more vocal):

Three Houses will age poorly. A few years from now, people will start questioning why TH was so well loved. On the other hand, fans will also start to wonder why Fates was so hated and realize it wasn't as bad as people made it to be.

I'm already wondering why TH is so well-loved (and have been for a while), but this is a pretty common cycle:

New game comes out -> everyone loves it. Honeymoon phase, some call it.
Years pass/another new game comes -> people start hating on it, realizing its flaws.
Even more time/yet another new game comes -> people get nostalgic for that 'first' one and learn to love what it is.

Fates is currently in that second stage and Awakening is currently in the third.

14 hours ago, zuibangde said:

Also...I feel like I don't really see people hating on Freyja??? People hated Camilla for what she represents and IS created a new character with almost the exact same archetype (doting sister that is obsessed with her brother with 'two big reasons' for why she's so popular). She's now becoming one of the most popular OCs from Heroes but people are weirdly ok with her actions/popularity despite her bland and bare boned backstory. Is it because she's presented as a villain or do we just have lower expectations for Heroes OCs?

Probably because Heroes only has 2 Freyjas but 8 Camillas. People also just don't care about Heroes' story, while Fates' story was expected to be really good so its flaws got more scrutiny.

Edited by Florete

Share this post


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

Here's my take, don't know if it's unpopular or not though:

Avatars are great, and Corrin is one of, if not the best at their Avatar role: Let the player be involved in the story, be the main character. (Not defending their questionable choices though, but I blame that at Fates writing)

Robin is the worst Avatar out of Mark, Robin, Corrin and Byleth (haven't play New Mystery, so I don't know about Kris). Their character is non-existent, but at the same time not really? If they want to do a blank character, do it all the way like Byleth or Mark. And their involvment in the story is half-assed too: Corrin and Byleth are great, Mark is pretty much removable so I don't mind them.

Kris is worse. At least when the dust settles for the other avatars, they have a clear cut role that makes enough logical sense. Kris has none of that and very minimal justification for Marth to pretty much ignore everyone else and put someone he just met on the highest pedestal. 

Share this post


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

Potentially unpopular (but maybe not because I kinda see it happening already but am not sure if people are just being more vocal):

Three Houses will age poorly. A few years from now, people will start questioning why TH was so well loved. On the other hand, fans will also start to wonder why Fates was so hated and realize it wasn't as bad as people made it to be.

I doubt this. There will certainly be some who think this, but they will undoubtedly be far from the majority. Both games have similar problems of IS biting off more than they could chew, but Three Houses at least has clear focus, and the stuff that it does well, it does very well. It's a lot like Breath of the Wild in that regard: it isn't great overall, but it does get right the things that were core to it and does very well at those things. Fates, meanwhile, is an unfocused and scattered mess. People will look back on it and notice things about it that had potential (as even I have done), but those are not things that were good; just things that could've been good. As far as "not as bad as people made it out to be"; that will only be true if talking about people who acted as if Fates was the worst game ever made, and I don't recall a single person going that far.

 

Anyway, here's my unpopular opinion: Shadow Dragon is a more enjoyable game and a better remake than Shadows of Valentia. At least Shadow Dragon knew what it wanted to be: a 1:1 remake with some added conveniences and improvements here and there. You won't expect much from it, but it delivers everything you would expect from it. Shadows of Valentia can't decide if it wants to be a 1:1 remake, a full-overhaul remake, or something in-between, and the result is an awkward mismatch that's far less than the sum of its parts.

Seriously, why is Shadows of Valentia considered the better remake? Is it because it has voice acting? What's the point of having decent voice acting if the script is bad (and, unlike Shadow Dragon, doesn't even have the excuse of being a barebones script from the early 90s)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpopular take on the remake train: Echoes is a more faithful remake than Shadow Dragon.

Shadow Dragon includes nearly universal reclassing that's easily accessible. Echoes limits reclassing to the DLC, and couches it in the existing Villager system.

Shadow Dragon adds a weapon triangle where it didn't exist before. Echoes remains faithful to its predecessor's lack of a triangle.

Shadow Dragon modifies the weapon level system into a more modern "weapon rank" system. Echoes holds true to not having weapon ranks at all.

Shadow Dragon adds up to 5 new maps, as well as a four-part Prologue, to its main campaign. While Echoes modifies some maps and dungeons, the only wholly new map (to the best of my knowledge) before the post-game is a single Prologue.

Shadow Dragon adds 7 newly playable characters. Echoes, outside of the DLC, only adds 2. Even accounting for its smaller cast, a much smaller proportion of Echoes' playable cast is totally new than of Shadow Dragon's.

Shadow Dragon forsook its prior promotion system, of variegated promotion items familiar to players of the GBA games, for a simplified system ruled by the Master Seal. Echoes retained the functionality of the Mila statues, in roughly their original form.

Anyway, I've just barely played FE1, and never touched FE2, so I'm probably wrong about half of this. Regardless, the point remains, to challenge the conventional understanding that "Echoes is a less faithful remake than Shadow Dragon". Each remake stays true in some aspects, and takes liberties in others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

I doubt this. There will certainly be some who think this, but they will undoubtedly be far from the majority. Both games have similar problems of IS biting off more than they could chew, but Three Houses at least has clear focus, and the stuff that it does well, it does very well. It's a lot like Breath of the Wild in that regard: it isn't great overall, but it does get right the things that were core to it and does very well at those things. Fates, meanwhile, is an unfocused and scattered mess. People will look back on it and notice things about it that had potential (as even I have done), but those are not things that were good; just things that could've been good. As far as "not as bad as people made it out to be"; that will only be true if talking about people who acted as if Fates was the worst game ever made, and I don't recall a single person going that far.

You know it’s funny that you say this because I feel the exact opposite as in Fates has more focus than 3 houses. Honestly 3H both in gameplay and especially story is a goddamn mess. At least Fates knew what it wanted to be from the outset and stayed true to its themes and ideas. Fates at the very least is structurally consistent as far as story is concerned and handles it’s route split and even world building I would argue a lot better. 3H feels like it’s trying to tell 3 different stories at once that both try to interconnect and relate with one another yet want nothing want nothing to do with each other at the same time. It feels like there’s a lot happening but at the end of each route it feels like nothing was accomplished at all. 3H’s story structure honest to god baffles me because it does feel like 3 separate stories that hardly have anything to do with each other. I mean the fact that Nemisis kind of just comes out of no where at the end of VW with no thematic relevance, build up, or pay off speaks volumes as to just how much of a mess this story is. And don’t even get me started at the irrelevant mess that is Dimitri’s character. Thematically 3H has a lot of interesting ideas going for but in execution it just ends up being a clusterfuck kinda like gen 7 OU.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I doubt this. There will certainly be some who think this, but they will undoubtedly be far from the majority. Both games have similar problems of IS biting off more than they could chew, but Three Houses at least has clear focus, and the stuff that it does well, it does very well. It's a lot like Breath of the Wild in that regard: it isn't great overall, but it does get right the things that were core to it and does very well at those things. Fates, meanwhile, is an unfocused and scattered mess. People will look back on it and notice things about it that had potential (as even I have done), but those are not things that were good; just things that could've been good. As far as "not as bad as people made it out to be"; that will only be true if talking about people who acted as if Fates was the worst game ever made, and I don't recall a single person going that far.

Agreed with @Ottservia above on this. Three Houses is a complete mess. Fates has an awful story, but everything else about it is very solid, and even its story is arguably more structurally consistent than TH despite being horribly written.

You and I seem to have pretty differing opinions on things. To me, BotW is the best Zelda game and the complete opposite of TH; while TH tries a lot and gets very little of it right, BotW tries a lot and gets most of it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Florete said:
17 hours ago, zuibangde said:

 

I'm already wondering why TH is so well-loved (and have been for a while), but this is a pretty common cycle

Maybe because the actions Edelgard does creates debates so long that you can write college essays on it? The voice acting is absolutely incredible, have you heard how Chris Hackney handles Dimitri in his psychosis? Or how every support conversation is animated with a unique background and is fully voiced and has unique dialogue ouge depending on whether its Part 1 or 2, certain characters being recruited etc.? 

Really going back to the gameplay though, my only criticism is that too many maps are reused for part 2, particularly for SS and VW, while some like Tailtean and Arianrhod are underutilized too little. Everything else I loved. I loved Battalions both visually and combat standpoint, like how to use battalions as a way to stun opponents for a turn, or using stride to gain enhanced movement. And I don't know is this is an unpopular opinion, but I really loved the Monastery and its activities. I loved doing Tea Parties, because I get rewarded for learning and caring for my allies with charm. In a similar vein, I enjoy eating with my units because it encourages me to learn about their taste preferences. And I enjoy feeding cats because I love cats in general and I get rewards for it. 

I also disagree with people saying Three Houses difficulty and maps are too easy. I remember on my first playthrough ( AM ) I had struggled with the later chapters because I had not fully understood the mechanics or what happens when you don’t recruit students. Even on consecutive playthroughs, even on Normal Mode, I never found the game too easy to the point I had to put handicaps.

 

47 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

3H feels like it’s trying to tell 3 different stories at once that both try to interconnect and relate with one another yet want nothing want nothing to do with each other at the same time.

That's more like the goals of the Three House Leaders. Three Houses  main theme lies with the Monastery: How quickly things can change for the worse. For the majority of the 1st Part, you are teaching your own class, but you are interacting with students and faculty that are not your own, you start to start to form friendships with them. You eat with them, have tea parties with them, do choir practice with them, and despite fighting with battles with them, you still have a feast with them and enjoy yourselves. These why the Monastery activities are important. You get to hang out with students and form connections. Why rush throughout the game when you could have a tea party with your friends? The world is not at war... yet. The game actively rewards you for participating in these activities like Charm for tea parties, fatigue refill for meals, and even students should you have enough of a bond with them.They are important because when the war starts, you realize only too late that these were moments that you took for granted and now are gone, and now you are forced to fight people who you called friends in a war that you know did not have to happen. 

17 hours ago, zuibangde said:

Also...I feel like I don't really see people hating on Freyja??? People hated Camilla for what she represents and IS created a new character with almost the exact same archetype (doting sister that is obsessed with her brother with 'two big reasons' for why she's so popular). She's now becoming one of the most popular OCs from Heroes but people are weirdly ok with her actions/popularity despite her bland and bare boned backstory. Is it because she's presented as a villain or do we just have lower expectations for Heroes OCs?

Its also the fact that she is an insanely good unit, unlike Camilla who wasn’t that great of a Heroes ever since it launch. 

 

17 hours ago, zuibangde said:

Three Houses will age poorly. A few years from now, people will start questioning why TH was so well loved. On the other hand, fans will also start to wonder why Fates was so hated and realize it wasn't as bad as people made it to be.

I highly doubt it. Its been two years, and its voice cast is still on the top 10 list or barley misses the top 10 for BehindTheVoiceActors. Its also the 5th most discussed game on GameFaqs for Switch.

 

And this going to be an unpopular opinion for sure, but I don't see why people are shocked and get angry that Awakening, Fates, and Three Houses get the most representation in Heroes. They are the games that sold the most, so obviously they are going to get the most reps. The first five games were never released, and the the ones that were released before Awakening and Fates did not sell superbly or was just not a popular game. So its very easy to understand that these games get the most representation, and I scratch my head when people get annoyed that these games get more banners compared to games like Tharacia 776 and Radiant Dawn. I started with Fates, and whenever I see characters from the pre-3DS era, I don't have any urge to spend money, which is probably the majority of international players. 

And speaking of which, this is an opinion not towards the games, but rather the fanbase. I get quite annoyed when people say the newer games are worse from the older games, simply because they are easier overall, the maps are objective are simpler, and supports and art style is too anime-esque. Well, for the former issue, Fire Emblem was notorious for being incredibly difficult between permadeath and difficult maps and tactics. That's probably a huge reason why FE games didn't sell to hot in the west, it was too difficult for the majority of players. Radiant Dawn was notorious for being way too difficult according to western critics. People here are these forums seem to forget we are a minority here, and do not represent the majority of fans. Huge maps and with complex objectives like Defend and seize are too difficult to be used on an average basis. That being said, Fates did try to cater to both sides, but was poorly recieved in the fandom. As for the anime style and influence, well that's a very broad , in Japan, anything animation is called Anime, but here in the west, its anything from Japan. And since the game is a JRPG, of course its going to be inspired by things like Manga. I also disagree that supports are a waste of time. One reason I love FE is because I love how characters interact and learn from each other. Its one of the biggest reasons I love FE over other RPGS, the abillity to see characters grow as a friends and have the ability to change potential endings based off these interactions is one of my favorite parts and I don't want it removed from future titles.

 

Share this post


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

The voice acting is absolutely incredible, have you heard how Chris Hackney handles Dimitri in his psychosis?

Chris Hackney's Dimitri could be the greatest acting of all time and it wouldn't suddenly make TH a good game lol. Nor would it make me like the game any more.

4 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

Or how every support conversation is animated with a unique background and is fully voiced and has unique dialogue ouge depending on whether its Part 1 or 2, certain characters being recruited etc.? 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure almost everything about this statement is false.

  • They're not "animated," they just use the stock animations used for every character. I mean, I guess you could call that animated, but it's nothing special; the game cuts away for any scenes that would be more complicated.
  • They don't have unique backgrounds. Those backgrounds are all used elsewhere in the game, mostly in the monastery. A lot of them have very obvious tearing, as well, making them look very unprofessional.
  • I'm pretty confident there's no unique dialogue depending on part 1 or 2, though do share examples if there are. And I know there are no changes based on certain characters being around or not. There are other bits of dialogue in the game that exist based on characters being around or not/dead or alive, but not in supports.

But yes, they are fully voiced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Florete said:
  • They're not "animated," they just use the stock animations used for every character. I mean, I guess you could call that animated, but it's nothing special; the game cuts away for any scenes that would be more complicated.
  • They don't have unique backgrounds. Those backgrounds are all used elsewhere in the game, mostly in the monastery. A lot of them have very obvious tearing, as well, making them look very unprofessional.
  • I'm pretty confident there's no unique dialogue depending on part 1 or 2, though do share examples if there are. And I know there are no changes based on certain characters being around or not. There are other bits of dialogue in the game that exist based on characters being around or not/dead or alive, but not in supports.

1. Yes they are animated. And yes, these use generic animations, but its still animation nonetheless. Its a very common practice to reuse animations in film and video games, in fact, at the end of Disney's Beauty and the Beast, the scene where Belle dances with Prince Adam is reused frames from Walt Disney's Sleeping Beauty according to developers because they ran out of budget for the ending scene. Even in Fates, Awakening, and Echoes, the majority of classes reuse animations and costumes bar a few characters like Ryoma and Xander. Its simply not practical to create unique animations for every character, animation is a lot of work and I know for a fact because I study animation in college.

2. You are right, the backgrounds are not unique and they do look from a PS2. Still though, this is the first time we had fully animated cutscenes and backgrounds for support conversations, which is a huge step up from the 3DS era, where all we had was character portraits changing to match emotions being displayed. This is a huge departure and for a first time, I think it execution was great. I mean yes, there is problems like you mentioned, but for a first time, I think it was great and I'm sure they will improve for future titles. 

3A .

Spoiler

Dorothea and Linhardt Support B:

Church Soldier: How did you know Dorothea was an orphan?
Church Soldier: I hear she buttered up some noble and he enrolled her in the academy...

In Part I

Church Soldier: Does someone like that even belong here?

In Part II

Church Soldier: She's higher ranking than us lot. How disappointing.

Dorothea: ...
Linhardt: I suggest ignoring them.
Dorothea: Ah! Lin, don't scare me like that!
Linhardt: You seem less scared than surprised, but that's quibbling, I suppose. As for those two gossips? Unimportant. I suggest forgetting all about them and their petty words. Join me for a meal. I've been the target of a lot of gossip, and eating generally makes me feel better.
Dorothea: Don't pretend we're the same. If I could brush it off so easily, I would.
Linhardt: It doesn't seem particularly difficult. Where's the problem? Is this about your pride?
Dorothea: No. Not even a little bit.
Linhardt: What then?
Dorothea: Lin. Please just...go away. I want to be alone right now.
Linhardt: That's fine. But your life is your own business. It's not something that can be affected by the petty words of a stranger. Ah, sorry. I kept talking, didn't I? I'll stop now.
Dorothea: Please do.

Note: In Crimson Flower, the Church Soldiers are instead Imperial Soldiers, in the Blue Lions and Azure Moon routes, they are Kingdom Soldiers, and in the Golden Deer and Verdant Wind routes, they are Alliance Soldiers.

3B. 

Spoiler

Felix and Sylvain Support B

Sylvain: Whenever I started doing something dumb, you'd yell at me about it.
Felix: And whenever you dragged me into something, Ingrid would find out and start lecturing us.

If Ingrid was recruited and is alive

Sylvain: All these years and not much has changed, has it?

If Ingrid died or was not recruited

Sylvain: All these years and not much has changed, has it? Even if we don't have Ingrid lording over us...

Sylvain: But you're different, Felix. You used to be so, I don't know...carefree when we were young. Now you're the exact opposite.

As you can see, I've shown you examples of dialogue changing whether or not it is in Part 1 or Part 2, as well dialogue that also changes if someone is in your army at the moment the conversation is being played. I can provide more if you are not satisfied. 

EDIT: On the topic of Chris Hackney's Voice Impression, that's not the point of whether or not Three Houses is a good game. You are asking why people love Three Houses, and I telling you people love how the good the voice acting is. It really helps bring out the emotion in scenes. Rhea's reaction to Byleth's betrayal in Chapter 11 is also fantastic voice acting. It really helps show how terrifying Rhea can be when provoked, something that’s significantly harder to do with no voice acting. 

 

Edited by ZeManaphy

Share this post


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

Unpopular take on the remake train: Echoes is a more faithful remake than Shadow Dragon.

-snip snip snip-

 

Anyway, I've just barely played FE1, and never touched FE2, so I'm probably wrong about half of this. Regardless, the point remains, to challenge the conventional understanding that "Echoes is a less faithful remake than Shadow Dragon". Each remake stays true in some aspects, and takes liberties in others.

The only thing I'd call wrong is saying it's an unpopular take rather than an objective fact, although it is a good rebuttal of the post above you. Shadow Dragon ported old units, maps and enemies into a modern engine for which they weren't originally designed. I can't wrap my head around calling Shadow Dragon a 1:1 remake when Echoes recreated the original engine minus NES clunk and adding a few things with that engine in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, X-Naut said:

The only thing I'd call wrong is saying it's an unpopular take rather than an objective fact, although it is a good rebuttal of the post above you. Shadow Dragon ported old units, maps and enemies into a modern engine for which they weren't originally designed. I can't wrap my head around calling Shadow Dragon a 1:1 remake when Echoes recreated the original engine minus NES clunk and adding a few things with that engine in mind.

Haha, thanks. Obviously, there were changes the games shared. Both added forging. Shadow Dragon added Battle Saves, while Echoes added Mila's Turnwheel. Both added the ability to see enemy range and overworld HP bars. Echoes certainly made bigger changes to its plot and characters.

Oh, but one more to prove my original point - Shadow Dragon added playable classes that weren't in the original, such as Warrior or Swordmaster. Echoes, meanwhile, retained its predecessor's class system, with no new playable classes outside the DLC overclasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both  also removed Crossbows. (Though they were enemy-only in Gaiden from what I hear.)

Which is a great injustice as I want more Crossbows in FE.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crossbows were mainly just an aesthetic feature for whatever reason. FE1 had the Bowgun but it acted more like a proto-Killer Bow than a true crossbow.

I wouldn't mind seeing them return like their Radiant Dawn incarnation but their damage could use some reworking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2021 at 2:39 PM, zuibangde said:

Three Houses will age poorly. A few years from now, people will start questioning why TH was so well loved. On the other hand, fans will also start to wonder why Fates was so hated and realize it wasn't as bad as people made it to be.

 

Oh TH is probably destined to age poorly. You having to replay the same set of stages in part 1 every time already makes it a bit hard to go back to, and most part 2 stages sharing the same stages in the exact same order isn't helping. 

That said I think that while undesirable its also not that bad for games to age poorly. Great games can age poorly. For instance I suspect Breath of the Wild is not going to age well once Nintendo starts ironing out its flaws in the next titles.

On the other hand I doubt Fates is going to get reevaluated by people. People already acknowledge the gameplay is really good so no opinions need to be changed there, and what people hate from a story perspective is often so overly wacky, culturally bizarre or ''objectively'' terrible that I don't think many people will be changing their minds on it. Being able to romance Percy and Elise will never stop being considered weird at best, Team Garon will never be seen as good villains and Corrin will likely remain controversial. 

20 hours ago, kienquocsi said:

Avatars are great, and Corrin is one of, if not the best at their Avatar role: Let the player be involved in the story, be the main character. (Not defending their questionable choices though, but I blame that at Fates writing)

I think what holds Corrin back at being effective as an avatar is that of the end of the day he really isn't one. There's nothing for the player to imprint themselves onto Corrin and see themselves as him. Corrin has far too dominant of a personality for that...which is amusing because his personality is about being so extremely submissive. Corrin is more of an established character like Hector or Marth rather than someone who's traits are deliberately low key so the player can imprint themselves on him. 

 

10 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Seriously, why is Shadows of Valentia considered the better remake? Is it because it has voice acting? What's the point of having decent voice acting if the script is bad (and, unlike Shadow Dragon, doesn't even have the excuse of being a barebones script from the early 90s)?

For me its mostly that Echoes has a script, and it has a cast of playable characters while with Shadow Dragon that's only barely so at the best of times. Mae and Boey are actual characters in a way Cain and Abel are not, Jedah and Berkut are actual villains in ways that Medeus and Gharnef are not. When comparing Gaiden and Echoes I see a cast full of dreadfully dull blank slates that were turned into a very strong cast of characters. When I compare Shadow Dragon with its NES counterpart I see a bunch of blank slates who with a few exceptions have largely remained those same blank slates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Seriously, why is Shadows of Valentia considered the better remake? Is it because it has voice acting? What's the point of having decent voice acting if the script is bad (and, unlike Shadow Dragon, doesn't even have the excuse of being a barebones script from the early 90s)?

This comes across like somebody from the 1930s asking "what's the point of a movie being a 'talkie' if the story is worse than the good old silent films?" A game that's near-fully voice acted, like SoV, is a very different experience than something that's text-based. For my part, I find it heightens the immersion (I don't have to imagine what characters sound like, as I would when reading a book), and allows for another dimension of expression beyond the text itself. That said, some people prefer games without voice acting, and that's fine too. And obviously, a voice-acted game can have a worse plot or dialogue than an unvoiced one. Shadow Dragon, as scant as it is, still offers some of the best dialogue in the series - lines like Mannu's "Interlopers! Barbarous filth!", or some random villager's "Munchin' Manaketes! The Altean Army", stick with me to this day.

My general point is, voice acting adds something, in terms of presentation, that's on a totally different axis from the quality of the script and story itself. To some players, such as myself, that's a big deal in its own right.

3 hours ago, X-Naut said:

I wouldn't mind seeing them return like their Radiant Dawn incarnation but their damage could use some reworking.

Just rework effective damage so that it's Genealogy-style - that is to say, (Strength + Might) x 2, rather than Strength + Might x 3. That way, high-Might weapons which ignore Strength don't deal an outsized chunk of damage when used against effectiveness targets.

Share this post


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

Oh TH is probably destined to age poorly. You having to replay the same set of stages in part 1 every time already makes it a bit hard to go back to, and most part 2 stages sharing the same stages in the exact same order isn't helping. 

I'm not sure that will really hold. I know that as games get older, I generally tend to play them less. Even my personal favourites, I'm probably only to replay maybe once every five years or so. As it gets older, the proportion of people playing it four times in a row is probably going to decrease. Back-to-back replay value is not necessarily the same as "drag it out of storage every five years" replay value. I also wouldn't be surprised if the perceived wisdom for first time players becomes "it's fun, but only play through one route of it unless you're really into it".

My guess on how Three Houses ages is that it depends a lot on where the series goes from here. If the future direction of the series borrows a lot from Three Houses, then things will probably be refined a lot going forward and Three Houses will be remembered as having an important role in the direction of the series but being very rough around the edges. On the other hand, if future games in the series go back to being more like older, more traditional Fire Emblem, then Three Houses will be remembered as a bit of a black sheep that did it's own weird thing that some people will like and others won't. I'm thinking of games like FE: Gaiden or The Adventure of Link that do weird stuff that is not really representative of their series as a whole but which still have their fans.

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...