Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I actually like that they're ignoring Dimitri. At that point in the story he's a completely irrational hobo who's lost all grasp on his sanity. At that point Bilbert and Byleth are pretty much required to do the actual work because they sure can't trust Dimitri with anything but fighting.

Historically, we've had monarchs and other rulers who were mad and left to rule unquestioned. And, we've had rulers who did not have the mental faculties required for the job (or chose not to use such faculties properly), who were restrained or propped up by competent and or talented officials.

Since we've had both, you could go either way in a story. And I can see how madness would be more entertaining, we remember Caligula, the unrestrained more than say Philip V of Spain. The latter the king who was depressed to the point of being incapable of ruling, but whose reign was kept thoroughly in check by his wife and officials, limiting it to mediocrity, not dramatic chaos.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer

Share this post


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

I don't really think Silver Snow being developed first is very significant since all stories got released in the base game at the same time. Despite being written first the game low key incentives you to play SS last which makes it doubly painful that its a blander version of VW. It does reflect poorly on the writers or those managing the production schedule that they had to resort to copy pasting, but Silver Snow being the template just means its the bare bones template while Verdant Wind is the better version due to it having bells and whistles. 

I actually like that they're ignoring Dimitri. At that point in the story he's a completely irrational hobo who's lost all grasp on his sanity. At that point Bilbert and Byleth are pretty much required to do the actual work because they sure can't trust Dimitri with anything but fighting. The rush at Enbarr does kinda fail since even if you win on Grondor its like ''Oh no! We gotta get out before Imperial reinforcement get here!'' and then they all leave. I suspect Dimitri being the king and everyone having to sigh and relent to his wishes because chivalry demands it is what got them at Grondor in Verdant Wind. That's somewhat the case in Azure Moon except they have Byleth and Rodrigue to hold hobo Dimitri by the hand. 

 

My issue is that Dimitri being stark raving mad doesn't actually change anything. Because Byleth and co end up doing the exact same thing they do in the other routes. I want Dimitri to actually have an impact on his own story (granted I want the same for Claude too, but at least Dimitri has some semblance of an actual story to work with). Dimitri doesn't actually make any mistakes or really do anything other than not attend class before his turn around. He's implied to have done bad stuff during the time skip off screen, and he says he's going to torture Randolph, but we don't actually see anything. If Dimitri was taking the reins and actually directing the war effort then he could make mistakes that heighten the impact of his turn around when he starts making the right decisions. Instead he mutters in the corner and effectively could be cut from the first half of the story as easily as Claude is. I think what sells Dimitri as made is less the actual writing and more the art direction.

8 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Historically, we've had monarchs and other rulers who were mad and left to rule unquestioned. And, we've had rulers who did not have the mental faculties required for the job (or chose not to use such faculties properly), who were restrained or propped up by competent and or talented officials.

Since we've had both, you could go either way in a story. And I can see how madness would be more entertaining, we remember Caligula, the unrestrained more than say Philip V of Spain. The latter the king who was depressed to the point of being incapable of ruling, but whose reign was kept thoroughly in check by his wife and officials, limiting it to mediocrity, not dramatic chaos.

Not just more entertaining, but also more thematically resonant, as part of Edelgard's whole shtick and by  association a theme of the game, is a criticism of monarchy and hereditary rule. That it's not the people who are most capable to rule that get to be in charge, but the people who are born into it. Showing how someone can be born into a position of power and be certifiably insane yet people still obey them out of loyalty to the system would really serve to show her point (and then with the second part countering by showing how Dimitri can rule well with a proper support base). Instead the game shows that hereditary rule is excellent because the people can just ignore the rightful king at their leisure (I would like to say only hereditary rule could put someone crazy in power, but we actually have a tonne of real world examples of people who were batshit insane, yet somehow still managed to become dictators and maintain power).

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Historically, we've had monarchs and other rulers who were mad and left to rule unquestioned. And, we've had rulers who did not have the mental faculties required for the job (or chose not to use such faculties properly), who were restrained or propped up by competent and or talented officials.

Since we've had both, you could go either way in a story. And I can see how madness would be more entertaining, we remember Caligula, the unrestrained more than say Philip V of Spain. The latter the king who was depressed to the point of being incapable of ruling, but whose reign was kept thoroughly in check by his wife and officials, limiting it to mediocrity, not dramatic chaos.

Caligula is a pretty bad example considering he got assassinated extremely quickly into his reign.

Share this post


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

Caligula is a pretty bad example considering he got assassinated extremely quickly into his reign.

Most people forget how short it was though, he remains memorable to this day simply because he was insane (according to the possibly biased records we have) and little was done prior to the assassination to stop it. 

Ivan IV "the Terrible" of Russia would be another choice, although some historians insist he was a rational person through his entire reign. With a middle ground existing between "always insane" and "always rational", asserting Ivan always had some mental instability, but fell off into total insanity later in his reign, typically after the death of Anastasia Romanovna, his wife (whose family would later become the tzars with Ivan's Rurik dynasty at an end). Henry VIII of England was mostly sane, but after a jousting accident, his mental health declined into the infamous state for which he is often remembered.

And then we have monarchs, who although not incapable of keeping a country afloat insane, had some sights of mental ailments. Peter the Great and Frederick William I of Prussia come to mind as rational, but cruel to the point where you might think they had a problem. Peter possibly having minor seizures, and Frederick William's personal writings being noted for their wild grammar.

Share this post


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

Most people forget how short it was though, he remains memorable to this day simply because he was insane (according to the possibly biased records we have) and little was done prior to the assassination to stop it. 

Ivan IV "the Terrible" of Russia would be another choice, although some historians insist he was a rational person through his entire reign. With a middle ground existing between "always insane" and "always rational", asserting Ivan always had some mental instability, but fell off into total insanity later in his reign, typically after the death of Anastasia Romanovna, his wife (whose family would later become the tzars with Ivan's Rurik dynasty at an end). Henry VIII of England was mostly sane, but after a jousting accident, his mental health declined into the infamous state for which he is often remembered.

And then we have monarchs, who although not incapable of keeping a country afloat insane, had some sights of mental ailments. Peter the Great and Frederick William I of Prussia come to mind as rational, but cruel to the point where you might think they had a problem. Peter possibly having minor seizures, and Frederick William's personal writings being noted for their wild grammar.

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that that one particular example might not have been the best one to pick.

Interestingly, there are also monarchs where it is unclear if they were unstable at all. The infamous Vlad the Impaler is a good example: was he genuinely bloodthirsty, or was he just using fear tactics because it the only tool he possessed for keeping Wallachia independent from Hungary and the Ottomans (both of whom were at war with each other and saw Wallachia as one of their vassal states even though it didn't belong to either of them)? Personally, given just how specific he was in his methods, I think it was almost-certainly the latter.

Share this post


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

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that that one particular example might not have been the best one to pick.

Interestingly, there are also monarchs where it is unclear if they were unstable at all. The infamous Vlad the Impaler is a good example: was he genuinely bloodthirsty, or was he just using fear tactics because it the only tool he possessed for keeping Wallachia independent from Hungary and the Ottomans (both of whom were at war with each other and saw Wallachia as one of their vassal states even though it didn't belong to either of them)? Personally, given just how specific he was in his methods, I think it was almost-certainly the latter.

From what I know of Ivan the Terrible, I was under the impression that he was in that category too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2021 at 2:05 PM, Shaky Jones said:

I mean, I agree, but I feel like that kind of statement should at least be elaborated. What's the worst part about it to you? For me, I get really frustrated by the map design and the repetition of enemy squads constantly running to you in herds of 10 to 15 units per squad throughout these maps, making me just want to use a handful of tanks to power through them all rather than actually devise a strategy with a full team (one that can't even catch up with cavaliers). The large maps feel more like a bunch of gaiden maps glued together, and so much time is spent just walking before any actual combat occurs. Of course, the larger the map is, horse units continue to make more progress over foot units, making it a lot more difficult to not play horse emblem than it should be. I couldn't even use Jamke or Ayra because of how Sigurd, Lex, Midayle, and Quan could easily route the enemy on their own. The villages in need of rescue only seem to promote this way of playing, and trying to get foot units to make it to these villages to receive the rewards is so slow and tedious. You could say it's rewarding you for playing optimally, but it felt more like punishing me for wanting to play my own way. Weaker units have a hard time leveling up in the arena, because enemies don't scale there, meaning they could easily lose round 2, while your overpowered horses sweep all 7 rounds and just get stronger and richer. FE4 just feels like I end up playing the same way with the same few units, and anything else just makes things tedious. I can't have fun like that. I'm sure it's gameplay mechanics are probably appealing to some, and many fans usually love FE4 for its story, but I tend to focus solely on gameplay, and most things in this game just annoy me.

the reason why i hate fe4 the most is because of how long it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can tell it’s bad writing when people follow dimitri even if he is insane. Hell in irl he would have been ursuped unlike in game. They would have killed for his grudge against Edelgard. His entire insanity comes from Edelgard mother dying. Dimitri maybe your step mother sent herself to the wolves to save her only child that survived Agarthan expirements? There chivalry and their not his bitch who watches our coffer’s and rule us isn’t made to rule or live. Honestly I expected farghus to get rid of dimitri 

Share this post


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

You can tell it’s bad writing when people follow dimitri even if he is insane. Hell in irl he would have been ursuped unlike in game. They would have killed for his grudge against Edelgard.

And that's what happens exactly happens on non-AM routes: Dimitri is unable to get over his desire for revenge on Edelgard, and he and his allies perish as result of that. But on AM, thanks to Byleth, he realizes his mistakes and lets go of his grudges and becomes a great king. He even admits and thanks Byleth after retaking the capital, saying that without him, he would have foolishly challenged a horde of foes until he died. 

 

1 hour ago, NaotoUzumaki said:

They would have killed for his grudge against Edelgard. His entire insanity comes from Edelgard mother dying. Dimitri maybe your step mother sent herself to the wolves to save her only child that survived Agarthan expirements?

I believe his extreme hatred for Edelgard comes from the fact that he believes that Edelgard, his beloved step-sister and his only remaining family, is working with the Agarthans, the very people who massacred in his family and friends right in front of his very eyes when he 13. And that's before considering all the attacks on the church she aids TWSID with, especially Remire, which Dimitri expresses complete disgust because he's a victim of the same trauma and understands. 

1 hour ago, NaotoUzumaki said:

Dimitri maybe your step mother sent herself to the wolves to save her only child that survived Agarthan expirements?

Dimitri had no evidence to suggest his mother was a conspiritor until Gilbert reveals the results of the spies he sent- its simply not his fault that he didn't know his step-mother wanted to see Edelgard again. Also, are you suggesting that its morally okay for someone to conspire a massacre just because they couldn't see someone?

1 hour ago, NaotoUzumaki said:

There chivalry and their not his bitch who watches our coffer’s and rule us isn’t made to rule or live. Honestly I expected farghus to get rid of dimitri 

Chivalry is very reason why the army sticks to the king. Chivalry is defined by knights and anyone lower serving the king faithfully. Faerghus is renowned for its Chivalry engraved in its culture,  so per tradition, they would obviously serve Dimitri even if he isn't mentally stable for the role. 

Edited by ZeManaphy

Share this post


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

I believe his extreme hatred for Edelgard comes from the fact that he believes that Edelgard, his beloved step-sister and his only remaining family, is working with the Agarthans, the very people who massacred in his family and friends right in front of his very eyes when he 13. And that's before considering all the attacks on the church she aids TWSID with, especially Remire, which Dimitri expresses complete disgust because he's a victim of the same trauma and understands. 

While this belief of Dimitri's is accurate, he also believes that Edelgard had a personal hand in the Tragedy of Duscur. Which is totally unfounded, but a manifestation of his well-founded feelings of betrayal.

6 hours ago, NaotoUzumaki said:

You can tell it’s bad writing when people follow dimitri even if he is insane. Hell in irl he would have been ursuped unlike in game. They would have killed for his grudge against Edelgard. His entire insanity comes from Edelgard mother dying. Dimitri maybe your step mother sent herself to the wolves to save her only child that survived Agarthan expirements? There chivalry and their not his bitch who watches our coffer’s and rule us isn’t made to rule or live. Honestly I expected farghus to get rid of dimitri 

And with whom would they replace him? He's the only living heir to House Blaiddyd, the established ruling house of the Kingdom. In a strict monarchy such as Faerghus, what can be more important than royal lineage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NaotoUzumaki said:

You can tell it’s bad writing when people follow dimitri even if he is insane. Hell in irl he would have been ursuped unlike in game. They would have killed for his grudge against Edelgard. His entire insanity comes from Edelgard mother dying. Dimitri maybe your step mother sent herself to the wolves to save her only child that survived Agarthan expirements? There chivalry and their not his bitch who watches our coffer’s and rule us isn’t made to rule or live. Honestly I expected farghus to get rid of dimitri 

You'd think so, but people have followed certifiably batshit insane leaders in the past. I have more of an issue with the fact that people aren't following him more.

Share this post


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

And with whom would they replace him? He's the only living heir to House Blaiddyd, the established ruling house of the Kingdom. In a strict monarchy such as Faerghus, what can be more important than royal lineage?

 

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

You'd think so, but people have followed certifiably batshit insane leaders in the past. I have more of an issue with the fact that people aren't following him more.

In fact the Azure Moon people seem kinda in the same boat as most Camus characters. Particularly Bryce who says ''Yes I know the king's barking mad but he's the king so what else can I do!?'' There's nothing more amusing than a knight indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

In fact the Azure Moon people seem kinda in the same boat as most Camus characters. Particularly Bryce who says ''Yes I know the king's barking mad but he's the king so what else can I do!?'' There's nothing more amusing than a knight indeed.

It's an interesting analogy. In most cases, though, the Camuses (Cami?) remain loyal to a King who's either ineffectual (the King of Grust, or Vigarde) or outright evil (Julius, Garon). Even Ashnard, the fabled "Mad King", can be considered sane within the context of his "strength before all else" moral paradigm. In Dimitri's case, he's deeply disturbed, but neither evil nor ineffectual. He's fighting for a good (or at least morally justifiable) cause - to defeat Edelgard, and end the Empire's unprovoked aggression toward Faerghus and the Church. He's just doing it for a bad reason - misguided personal revenge, rather than placing the needs of his people first.

Share this post


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

t's an interesting analogy. In most cases, though, the Camuses (Cami?) remain loyal to a King who's either ineffectual (the King of Grust, or Vigarde) or outright evil (Julius, Garon). Even Ashnard, the fabled "Mad King", can be considered sane within the context of his "strength before all else" moral paradigm. In Dimitri's case, he's deeply disturbed, but neither evil nor ineffectual. He's fighting for a good (or at least morally justifiable) cause - to defeat Edelgard, and end the Empire's unprovoked aggression toward Faerghus and the Church. He's just doing it for a bad reason - misguided personal revenge, rather than placing the needs of his people first.

I'd say hobo Dimitri is ineffectual. His contribution to most strategy meetings seems to be him suggesting really bad ideas which the others need to talk him out of, and he generally Gilbert and Rodrigue babysitting him. The direct march towards Enbarr he insists on and successfully manages to press on the army seems doomed for failure. Even when winning at Grondor they're forced to retreat and without Byleth it results in his death. He's kind of a big burden to the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Vanessa is better than tana

-Lyn is one of the best characters

-Lugh is far better than Lilina as he has better speed and skill.
-Armor Knights are not bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the problems that I have noticed with the plots of Fates, Echoes and Three Houses over the years, it makes me wish for the next game, whatever that ends up being, to have a single route for the story. It feels like the plot of these games really suffer from having the focus split between multiple routes. I would rather have a single, well done storyline than 2-4 half-assed ones. Not sure if this sentiment is unpopular though.

Share this post


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

I'd say hobo Dimitri is ineffectual. His contribution to most strategy meetings seems to be him suggesting really bad ideas which the others need to talk him out of, and he generally Gilbert and Rodrigue babysitting him. The direct march towards Enbarr he insists on and successfully manages to press on the army seems doomed for failure. Even when winning at Grondor they're forced to retreat and without Byleth it results in his death. He's kind of a big burden to the team.

You have a point, to be sure. He expresses no interest in leading his army or his kingdom. And had Dimitri not experienced his attitude turnabout, he likely would have died after Gronder, as he did in VW.

That said, the other "ineffectual" characters I mentioned are those who aren't evil in their own right, but are pressured by another power to be with the "bad guys". The King of Grust is coerced by Medeus, while Vigarde is a husk controlled by the Demon King, acting through Lyon. Dimitri isn't one of the "bad guys" (even if much of his murder hobo behavior is morally questionable), and he's not coerced by anyone else into acting (save for the voices in his head). Thinking it over, perhaps Dimitri could be considered on a far end of the axis of "Camus-able royalty"?

1 hour ago, ProjectEmber said:

-Vanessa is better than tana

-Lyn is one of the best characters

-Lugh is far better than Lilina as he has better speed and skill.
-Armor Knights are not bad

Most tier lists and draft racers would agree with these two, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Metal Flash said:

With all the problems that I have noticed with the plots of Fates, Echoes and Three Houses over the years, it makes me wish for the next game, whatever that ends up being, to have a single route for the story. It feels like the plot of these games really suffer from having the focus split between multiple routes. I would rather have a single, well done storyline than 2-4 half-assed ones. Not sure if this sentiment is unpopular though.

While I do agree with this point, I feel like in regards to Fates and echoes the stories of those games would not work without the split routes. In regards to echoes the main point of the story is that Celica and Alm are supposed to contrast each other as foils. Celica is Alm’s deuteragonist and the two walk separate but parallel paths and view the world from different perspectives and grow together along their respective journeys. If you cut out one path you lose half the story.

in regards to Fates, it’s better to view each path as one arc in one long over arcing narrative where birthright is the first arc, Conquest the second arc, and Revelation being the third and final arc. The stories of each path do not work on their own but rather work as one piece of a greater hole because without birthright a lot of plot points in conquest and Revelation go unresolved. The same is true for conquest. And without Revelation a number of plot threads in BR and CQ have no real conclusion and on that same token a lot of the plot points in Rev don’t make sense without the context that birthright and conquest provide. The story of fates is entirely built on each path contrasting and playing off of one another. You remove one then you essentially remove one third of the entire story. It’s not handled the best mind you but it is important to keep that context in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Story-wise, it's similar to the two routes in SacSto, except that you do both of them in a single playthrough. But if you look at the story, it's probably more important that SacSto and Gaiden/SoV are both more like one story with two separate strings that recombine near the end, even though you need two playthoughs to do both strings in SacSto and Lyon is characterized slightly differently between those.

Fates and (from my limited knowledge) 3H seem more in the vein of "here's the trousers of time, you can pick what leg we're going through", which Gaiden does not and SacSto only very slightly goes for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Metal Flash said:

With all the problems that I have noticed with the plots of Fates, Echoes and Three Houses over the years

I think not enjoying Three Houses story is an unpopular one, everywhere else I go people, like Smogon, Reddit,  and Youtube to name a few, people always express how amazing Three Houses is of a game is.  And I rank it among the best games I have ever played. The story that people can write college essays about, the Monastery and it's minigames, full voice acting, and the sheer amount of customizibility for your units always makes me want to go a back and play more. My brother got into Fire Emblem through Three Houses and played all routes except SS due to its narrative. Yet here, I feel like its become quite popular to dislike Three Houses of late here. That being said, this forum is all a very small portion of this fandom; and this behavior isn't too surprising, I see it all the time on Smogon when we discuss Pokémon games.  " Sun and Moon are horrible games because of the unskippable cutscenes ! " All the new Pokemon in Black and White were terrible because they were Gen 1 ripoffs ! " " XY are the worst in the series due to the terrible story and easy difficulty !" Does that not sound familiar? 

Share this post


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

While I do agree with this point, I feel like in regards to Fates and echoes the stories of those games would not work without the split routes. In regards to echoes the main point of the story is that Celica and Alm are supposed to contrast each other as foils. Celica is Alm’s deuteragonist and the two walk separate but parallel paths and view the world from different perspectives and grow together along their respective journeys. If you cut out one path you lose half the story.

That is true, it`s less two seperate routes and more two parts of the same story.

3 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

I think not enjoying Three Houses story is an unpopular one, everywhere else I go people, like Smogon, Reddit,  and Youtube to name a few, people always express how amazing Three Houses is of a game is.  And I rank it among the best games I have ever played. The story that people can write college essays about, the Monastery and it's minigames, full voice acting, and the sheer amount of customizibility for your units always makes me want to go a back and play more. My brother got into Fire Emblem through Three Houses and played all routes except SS due to its narrative. Yet here, I feel like its become quite popular to dislike Three Houses of late here. That being said, this forum is all a very small portion of this fandom; and this behavior isn't too surprising, I see it all the time on Smogon when we discuss Pokémon games.  " Sun and Moon are horrible games because of the unskippable cutscenes ! " All the new Pokemon in Black and White were terrible because they were Gen 1 ripoffs ! " " XY are the worst in the series due to the terrible story and easy difficulty !" Does that not sound familiar? 

I feel like people have started to critique Three Houses more as time as passed and it`s "honeymoon phase" has passed. Though I have mostly seen this on Youtube and Reddit.

Share this post


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

I think not enjoying Three Houses story is an unpopular one, everywhere else I go people, like Smogon, Reddit,  and Youtube to name a few, people always express how amazing Three Houses is of a game is.  And I rank it among the best games I have ever played. The story that people can write college essays about, the Monastery and it's minigames, full voice acting, and the sheer amount of customizibility for your units always makes me want to go a back and play more. My brother got into Fire Emblem through Three Houses and played all routes except SS due to its narrative. Yet here, I feel like its become quite popular to dislike Three Houses of late here. That being said, this forum is all a very small portion of this fandom; and this behavior isn't too surprising, I see it all the time on Smogon when we discuss Pokémon games.  " Sun and Moon are horrible games because of the unskippable cutscenes ! " All the new Pokemon in Black and White were terrible because they were Gen 1 ripoffs ! " " XY are the worst in the series due to the terrible story and easy difficulty !" Does that not sound familiar? 

Ehhhh I’m just gonna say 3H’s story is kind of a fucking mess. You can write an essay on its story alright but it’s not gonna be a positive one

Share this post


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

Ehhhh I’m just gonna say 3H’s story is kind of a fucking mess. You can write an essay on its story alright but it’s not gonna be a positive one

Why is it a mess?

Share this post


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

I think not enjoying Three Houses story is an unpopular one, everywhere else I go people, like Smogon, Reddit,  and Youtube to name a few, people always express how amazing Three Houses is of a game is.  And I rank it among the best games I have ever played. The story that people can write college essays about, the Monastery and it's minigames, full voice acting, and the sheer amount of customizibility for your units always makes me want to go a back and play more. My brother got into Fire Emblem through Three Houses and played all routes except SS due to its narrative. Yet here, I feel like its become quite popular to dislike Three Houses of late here. That being said, this forum is all a very small portion of this fandom; and this behavior isn't too surprising, I see it all the time on Smogon when we discuss Pokémon games.  " Sun and Moon are horrible games because of the unskippable cutscenes ! " All the new Pokemon in Black and White were terrible because they were Gen 1 ripoffs ! " " XY are the worst in the series due to the terrible story and easy difficulty !" Does that not sound familiar? 

I mean, yeah, you're right that this forum is just a tiny part of the fanbase, but I've definitely seen heavy criticisms of it on other sites, especially Reddit. Like Metal Flash said, the honeymoon phase is over and people are just acknowledging the flaws now. Hell, most of those things you listed about it are negatives for me. If the next FE uses Three Houses as a base and refines it, I feel like people are going to look back and wonder how they ever loved TH so much to begin with.

I happen to quite like both Pokemon Black/White and Sun/Moon, and I've played the series since it began. Pokemon White is actually one of my favorite video games in general.

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...