What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Jotari]

20 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

Well, Pokémon also has hit and critical hit rates as well as secondary effects that you must take in consideration when building  for a facility like the Battle Tower. Granted, it may not be as notable first glance since Pokémon’s Single player campaign usually allows the player to use items whenever they want, and are usually lopsided in the Player’s favor, but when you go into the Single Player PvP mode, it becomes quite unpredictable. Let’s pull up a hypothetical: it’s a 3v1 and I have an Alakazam against a Haxorus that was just sent out. Alakazam uses Psychic and Haxorus sets us Dragon Dance. Haxorus is now faster and OHKOes Alakazam. Then you send in Sylveon, who has the type advantage, only Sylveon is OHKOed by an Iron Tail. And lastly, you send in Heatran, which gets one shot by Earthquake. It’s game over and your streak is ruined. Is this game mode “bad” because I had no idea that a Haxorus with the following moves that can OHKO the majority of Pokémon I trained if it sets up? Or is it unfair because it denies the chance me the chance to switch out like the main campaign and if I switch, Sylveon would have been able to take an unboosted Iron Tail?

Is being unable to switch out pokemon or random switching on KO bad? No, I wouldn't say bad, but I definitely would say words, as it does make the gameplay less tactical and I can understand why players would be frustrated by such a lack of control. Still it's a quirk that's more varied and that's an important thing for Pokemon since battles can get quite stale. Even with all that, it's still not analogous to Ambush Spawns in Fire Emblem.

[ZeManaphy]

21 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Which of my points is this in response to?

The one about how the supports are story filler and you are expected to watch them all. 

[Alastor15243]

4 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

The one about how the supports are story filler and you are expected to watch them all. 

The fact that I can skip them is kinda immaterial. The fact that the game would make me even tempted to skip them is a symptom of what I hate about it: that it throws so many of them at you that both gameplay and storywise they're rendered rather meaningless, compared to previous games where you generally only see the ones you're actively trying to, and thus actively want to, cultivate.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Alastor15243

[Benice]

10 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

Pokémon’s Single player campaign usually allows the player to use items whenever they want, and are usually lopsided in the Player’s favor, but when you go into the Single Player PvP mode, it becomes quite unpredictable

That is part of the problem; most FEs aren't PvP games set in individual instances; they're linear PvE games with losses suffered that are permanent. PvP games are balanced differently than PvE since, at least in a game like FE, the enemy will come at you with the same materials and nearly identical stats each and every time; the challenges are made and balanced by the developers, meaning that my personal expectation is that there's effort and intent behind these challenges. As it is, and most FE games are designed to make the player win in every situation as you can't progress if you lose. Plus, the enemy AI can't properly think, so the difficulty comes from the enemy having advantageous positions, while you theoretically have the intellectual advantage. (I don't often have the intellectual advantage, but I try...)

In the situation you highlited, it's a case of the one player outthinking the other and coming forwards with a good strategy (I think) to overcome a bad position using pre-established rules that one could theoretically have avoided without trial and error. Furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that one of the players does have to lose in this situation, and you don't lose your pokemon or anything like that. Losing isn't a game over, you can simply join another match. PvP games are designed around players losing, and it's unrealistic to think that you should win every game. I don't know if that situation is fair or not because I've never played Pokemon, but it sounds like poor PvP balancing at worst to me.

FE isn't Pokemon the same way FE or Pokemon aren't Dark Souls. Each of these games may have really unfair situations they may put players into, but it's not really logical to compare them because of how they fundamentally are different and appeal to different players and the way in which the unfair situations manifest is different as well.

---

As someone who loves Binding Blade, I do often think that ambush spawn problems can be overblown. Some games do a fine job telegraphing where they can come from, (at least at times), and if they really bother you that much, you can just look up a guide. With that being said, I think it's preferable not to have ambush spawns, and if they must be there, I think it's essential that you design maps as if Turnwheel/Pulse isn't there since it tends to remove the need to do anything strategic at all.

And I don't think this is unpopular, but I don't like the Turnwheel mechanic much at all. By giving the player the ability to undo errors, I feel like it kinda gets rid of the strategic element of FE and makes persisting through suboptimal routes or approaches kinda pointless.

[ZeManaphy]

1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:

The fact that I can skip them is kinda immaterial. The fact that the game would make me even tempted to skip them is a symptom of what I hate about it: that it throws so many of them at you that both gameplay and storywise they're rendered rather meaningless, compared to previous games where you generally only see the ones you're actively trying to, and thus actively want to, cultivate.

Or it shows that you are extremely impatient, and you don’t really care that much about characters interacting. Seriously speaking though, this more like a “ you “ problem. I already explained my thoughts on the supports on Three Houses and why I love them in a previous post, so I not going to explain again. But I will say that you remind me of the people who always complain about Pokemon Sun and Moon and how the games are “ torture “ to play and are worst due to  the unskippable cutscenes when I’m in the Pokémon forums. I never found the cutscenes that problematic at all, especially since they help foreshadow  Lillie’s history. That being said, the cutscenes in SM are truly unskippable, meaning I can see it being a drag on a future playthrough. In Three Houses, all the cutscenes, including the supports can be skipped ( with the exception of parlouge openings because the cutscenes are the opening menu ) so I don’t really see how it is such a big deal.

[Alastor15243]

8 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

Or it shows that you are extremely impatient, and you don’t really care that much about characters interacting.

"Extremely impatient"? You do realize the average number of supports that get unlocked in a single playthrough amounts to two thirds of the runtime of the LotR trilogy, right?

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

Well, Pokémon also has hit and critical hit rates as well as secondary effects that you must take in consideration when building  for a facility like the Battle Tower. Granted, it may not be as notable first glance since Pokémon’s Single player campaign usually allows the player to use items whenever they want, and are usually lopsided in the Player’s favor, but when you go into the Single Player PvP mode, it becomes quite unpredictable. Let’s pull up a hypothetical: it’s a 3v1 and I have an Alakazam against a Haxorus that was just sent out. Alakazam uses Psychic and Haxorus sets us Dragon Dance. Haxorus is now faster and OHKOes Alakazam. Then you send in Sylveon, who has the type advantage, only Sylveon is OHKOed by an Iron Tail. And lastly, you send in Heatran, which gets one shot by Earthquake. It’s game over and your streak is ruined. Is this game mode “bad” because I had no idea that a Haxorus with the following moves that can OHKO the majority of Pokémon I trained if it sets up? Or is it unfair because it denies the chance me the chance to switch out like the main campaign and if I switch, Sylveon would have been able to take an unboosted Iron Tail? 

Bringing up things like the battle tower as an example for accounting for crit and stuff is not example because 

1. The battle tower cheats and the AI uses competitive strategies and team comps with fully EV trained and IV bred pokemon. The game kind of to know your shit before hand.
 

2. depending on the game you can actually cheese it relatively easily. In X and Y there’s a strat involving truant Durant that turns the battle maison into a walk in the park.

also as someone who plays hardcore nuzlockes and battles competitively in smogon OU, playing around the crit is part of the fun. Cause you can play around the crit. It’s the number 1 rule of any hardcore nuzlocker. Cause the chances of losing a Pokémon to a crit is low but it’s almost never zero so when coming up with strategies against say champion Cynthia you always have to factor the crit into your calculations. The same goes for competitive battling though to a slightly lesser extent. 

For your specific example regarding Haxorous, any competitive battler worth their salt should have at least a decent idea of what moves Haxorous gets and typical sets run by it. Most Haxorous will be running anti-fairy coverage cause it’s just common sense(though why it would be iron tail and not poison jab is beyond me) and if you know anything about competitive Pokémon then a Haxorous carrying earthquake should not surprise you because if a physical attacker can get earthquake then 9 times out of 10 they’re gonna be running earthquake because it’s fucking earthquake one of the best moves in the entire game. You also have to consider defensive and speed stats as well. Like I said, if you know what you’re doing you would almost never send Sylveon in on a Haxorous to revenge kill unless you know you can survive a hit because Sylveon is super slow and is not taking a poison jab running off of a base 147 atk stat unless of course maybe if the Sylveon is max defense. I don’t know how that calcs out though. Though my point is pokemon is a bad comparison because with pokemon, pvp modes especially, you should already have sufficient knowledge of the meta and common strategies with each pokemon going in if you ever hope to succeed. I know from experience. If you don’t understand what your opponent’s pokemon are capable of in comparison to yours then you’re just not gonna win and every competitive battler will tell you that. 

[Vicious Sal]

If we're comparing Pokémon as better concept is this:
You're playing. It's a blind playthrough and you're in battle with a gym leader. You have all your team at half health and the battle is almost over. Your enemy is on their last Pokémon and you're about to end the battle. 

As you are about to finish of the enemy's Sharpedo who is at 25% health, wonder guard suddenly activates, the trainer speaks about their buddy coming in and suddenly a second set of 6 pokemon show up out of the blue and you cannot heal in between. It's an out of the blue extra set of 6 Pokémon you couldn't account for and the also have 100% guaranteed quick claw activation as a held item. They are also all allowed to attack before you're allowed to attack again. If your pokemon faints you can send out a new one but their attacks still continu until all 6 have attacked.

There was no way for you to know this unless you looked at a site beforehand. This isn't good game design. It's incredibly unhealthy. I'm of the mind that ambush spawns CAN be done well, but they are highly situational. I also do not mind the concept of a turnwheel, however. The problem of a turnwheel being in the game is that it causes designers to keep that mechanic in their mind and probably actively, maybe inadvertendly and subconciously, the game is built and made with it in mind. 

[ZeManaphy]

1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:

"Extremely impatient"? You do realize the average number of supports that get unlocked in a single playthrough amounts to two thirds of the runtime of the LotR trilogy, right?

I can’t anything about LoTR Trilogy because I know nothing about it, but I highly doubt that the supports you can watch would constitute two games of a trilogy.

 

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

1. The battle tower cheats and the AI uses competitive strategies and team comps with fully EV trained and IV bred pokemon. The game kind of to know your shit before hand.

The Battle Tower does not cheat. All the sets for every Pokémon are totally legitimate on Cartridge. 

 

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

2. depending on the game you can actually cheese it relatively easily. In X and Y there’s a strat involving truant Durant that turns the battle maison into a walk in the park.

Doesn’t make it foolproof. It’s only a matter of time until you run into a Quagsire  with Unaware and suddenly you are at a disadvantage because your boosts are rendered ineffective. In order to succeed in the Battle Tower, one must have multiple strategies. 

 

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

For your specific example regarding Haxorous, any competitive battler worth their salt should have at least a decent idea of what moves Haxorous gets and typical sets run by it. Most Haxorous will be running anti-fairy coverage cause it’s just common sense(though why it would be iron tail and not poison jab is beyond me) and if you know anything about competitive Pokémon then a Haxorous carrying earthquake should not surprise you because if a physical attacker can get earthquake then 9 times out of 10 they’re gonna be running earthquake because it’s fucking earthquake one of the best moves in the entire game. You also have to consider defensive and speed stats as well. Like I said, if you know what you’re doing you would almost never send Sylveon in on a Haxorous to revenge kill unless you know you can survive a hit because Sylveon is super slow and is not taking a poison jab running off of a base 147 atk stat unless of course maybe if the Sylveon is max defense. I don’t know how that calcs out though. Though my point is pokemon is a bad comparison because with pokemon, pvp modes especially, you should already have sufficient knowledge of the meta and common strategies with each pokemon going in if you ever hope to succeed. I know from experience. If you don’t understand what your opponent’s pokemon are capable of in comparison to yours then you’re just not gonna win and every competitive battler will tell you that. 

Your missing the context of the scenario. It’s a 1 V 2 scenario with Haxorus against the Sylveon and Heatran. Even if you switch in Sylveon against Haxorus and decide to switch out because you predict the Iron Tail, Heatran is going to be bopped by Earthquake. Then you send in Sylveon, and it’s the same scenario two turns earlier. Switching in Sylveon isn’t an option because Sylveon gets 2HKOed by Earthquake anyway. It doesn’t matter whether you predict the Iron Tail or not, the end scenario is the same, you have to hope your Sylveon to survive an Iron Tail. 
 

If you never done multiplayer 3V3, a single turn of setup or a double switch could potential be enough to win you a game. It why Offense tends to lot more successful compared to Stall, defensive cores are a lot less reliable when you only have three slots and things are squishier at Lv. 50. 
 

2 hours ago, Vicious Sal said:

If we're comparing Pokémon as better concept is this:
You're playing. It's a blind playthrough and you're in battle with a gym leader. You have all your team at half health and the battle is almost over. Your enemy is on their last Pokémon and you're about to end the battle. 

As you are about to finish of the enemy's Sharpedo who is at 25% health, wonder guard suddenly activates, the trainer speaks about their buddy coming in and suddenly a second set of 6 pokemon show up out of the blue and you cannot heal in between. It's an out of the blue extra set of 6 Pokémon you couldn't account for and the also have 100% guaranteed quick claw activation as a held item. They are also all allowed to attack before you're allowed to attack again. If your pokemon faints you can send out a new one but their attacks still continu until all 6 have attacked.

There was no way for you to know this unless you looked at a site beforehand. This isn't good game design. It's incredibly unhealthy. I'm of the mind that ambush spawns CAN be done well, but they are highly situational. I also do not mind the concept of a turnwheel, however. The problem of a turnwheel being in the game is that it causes designers to keep that mechanic in their mind and probably actively, maybe inadvertendly and subconciously, the game is built and made with it in mind. 

Never said it was a perfect analogy, I’m trying to use the Battle Tower as an example of how just because something is unexpected, it does not make it unfair. Through that logic, any surprise tactic a video game gives to a boss is unfair. 

Guess this going to be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t find ambushes unfair or poor game design, rather I find them a good way to test your strategy skills when things don’t go as planned.

[Alastor15243]

1 hour ago, ZeManaphy said:

I can’t anything about LoTR Trilogy because I know nothing about it, but I highly doubt that the supports you can watch would constitute two games of a trilogy.

Lord of the Rings. I'm saying it takes around 6 hours.

[AnonymousSpeed]

Watch the supports: "I don't know what you're complaining about, they're optional, you can just skip them."

Skip the supports: "Don't complain about the characters if you haven't read all their supports, you're missing important information."

[Alastor15243]

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Watch the supports: "I don't know what you're complaining about, they're optional, you can just skip them."

Skip the supports: "Don't complain about the characters if you haven't read all their supports, you're missing important information."

I have indeed heard both of these arguments leveled at me in defense of 3H, but I have to remind myself I probably never heard them from the same person.

[Ottservia]

5 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

The Battle Tower does not cheat. All the sets for every Pokémon are totally legitimate on Cartridge. 

Not what I meant. The AI will intentionally pit you up against opponents that directly counter your team which is cheap to say the least.

 

5 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

Your missing the context of the scenario. It’s a 1 V 2 scenario with Haxorus against the Sylveon and Heatran. Even if you switch in Sylveon against Haxorus and decide to switch out because you predict the Iron Tail, Heatran is going to be bopped by Earthquake. Then you send in Sylveon, and it’s the same scenario two turns earlier. Switching in Sylveon isn’t an option because Sylveon gets 2HKOed by Earthquake anyway. It doesn’t matter whether you predict the Iron Tail or not, the end scenario is the same, you have to hope your Sylveon to survive an Iron Tail. 
 

I mean at that point it’s a matter of prediction and you have a 50% chance of guessing correctly. Also if the Haxorous is boosted then Sylveon isn’t surviving regardless but if it’s banded or scarfed then you can play around that. Really it just depends on the situation. There’s also the relatively high chance of iron tail missing so

 

5 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

Guess this going to be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t find ambushes unfair or poor game design, rather I find them a good way to test your strategy skills when things don’t go as planned.

 I will agree with this but only if the ambush spawns are designed properly 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Ottservia

[ZeManaphy]

59 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Not what I meant. The AI will intentionally pit you up against opponents that directly counter your team which is cheap to say the least.

 

According to the Smogon's Battle Tree and Mechanics page, its completely random which Pokémon a trainer will use, with the only non-RNG factor being the pool they can draw from.  The author even addresses that the biggest cause of " cheap " and  " frustration " in the Battle Tree is the randomness. 

[Jotari]

Ambush Spawns are certainly on topic for this thread, but I think a dedicated topic for the idea might be warranted. Especially for localizing positions in support of them. Not everyone checks this thread.

[AnonymousSpeed]

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

Ambush Spawns are certainly on topic for this thread, but I think a dedicated topic for the idea might be warranted. Especially for localizing positions in support of them. Not everyone checks this thread.

Unpopular opinion, I don't really blame them.

"Ambush spawns good, guys" thread when?

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Unpopular opinion, I don't really blame them.

"Ambush spawns good, guys" thread when?

The translation of what I said was really "someone make it for me, I'm on mobile and can't be assed." But since no one did that

 

[fates is based]

On 12/14/2021 at 9:30 AM, Theghostcreator said:

Fire Emblem Fates is the best Fire Emblem game, all three of them. I will not elaborate.

fates will always be based

 

[Lorneus]

On 12/14/2021 at 4:00 PM, ZeManaphy said:

Or it shows that you are extremely impatient, and you don’t really care that much about characters interacting. Seriously speaking though, this more like a “ you “ problem.

I mean, all they said really was that the amount that came in was a little too much for the pacing of the game to feel organic. Even though I love 3H supports, I can't blame them on that, as it is true it can feel overwhelming to get like 7 supports unlock suddenly (especially with the support locks which are quite annoying though I understand why they are there). I'd say my problem on that end is mostly the monastery (ESPECIALLY White Clouds monastery), even though I like what it provides in a first run. Also... this is an unpopular opinion thread... isn't being a "you" problem kinda the point? 

Sorry that I don't have unpopular opinions to add here. I just like butting in on arguments. Could "Vaike should come with Axe Valor in FEH" be an unpopular opinion because the skill is old with the current meta? I don't really know what people are talking about so "popular" and "unpopular" opinions are kinda over my head. I just like valor skills and "teach" is the perfect guy to have it. He's probably gonna end up as a demote with EXP though...

Or how about "Charlotte is the best designed and written character in Fates"?

[Saint Rubenio]

15 hours ago, Lorneus said:

Or how about "Charlotte is the best designed and written character in Fates"?

Oho! That's an interesting opinion that I... almost agree with. I'll admit there are a few characters I'm more fond of, such as Shura, Izana, Ignatius, Benny and Garon but that's because he makes me laugh like no other character in the entire series, but Charlotte is certainly up there. In my first run I took one look at her and went "oh hi Fanservice Character nº 43, welcome to the bench." I gave her a chance in my second run, though, and I was pleasantly surprised. Her support with Benny has no business being as wholesome as it is. I suppose the lesson here is "don't judge a book by its cover."

[vanguard333]

17 hours ago, Lorneus said:

Or how about "Charlotte is the best designed and written character in Fates"?

It's not exactly like the competition's fierce; Fates has what is almost-certainly the most woefully-written cast of any FE game. I don't think Charlotte is the best, but, considering how bad the cast is overall, I can definitely understand that opinion.

 

I may have already mentioned it before, but I honestly think that Echoes: Shadows of Valentia is the worst of the FE remakes. Shadow Dragon may not have been what a lot of people were hoping for, but I actually appreciate that it made no pretense about being anything other than a deliberately-retro 1-for-1 remake. With Shadows of Valentia, I wanted to like it, but it felt like the team either disagreed or had no idea what kind of remake they wanted the game to be; what they thought should be modernized and what they thought should be changed, and that clash makes for a jarring experience that's worse than the sum of its parts.

[Lorneus]

3 hours ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Oho! That's an interesting opinion that I... almost agree with. I'll admit there are a few characters I'm more fond of, such as Shura, Izana, Ignatius, Benny and Garon but that's because he makes me laugh like no other character in the entire series, but Charlotte is certainly up there. In my first run I took one look at her and went "oh hi Fanservice Character nº 43, welcome to the bench." I gave her a chance in my second run, though, and I was pleasantly surprised. Her support with Benny has no business being as wholesome as it is. I suppose the lesson here is "don't judge a book by its cover."

Can't say I cared much for Izana and Ignatius, but Shura is definitely an interesting character and Benny is love itself.

Haha, that's a pretty accurate lesson yeah. Benny and Charlotte is probably the best duo in the game because they complete each other very well and were definitely made while thinking of them as a pair. Charlotte, the girl who puts on a mask to be judged by her cover because she can't accept her true self, and Benny, who's the most wholesome and sincere guy you'll meet, but struggles with his cover because it makes him look unapproachable despite not wishing for it. Props to them for really giving the dynamic justice too.

And I guess the fact she totally looks like a fanservice character is part of what makes her stand out so much, because you expect nothing from her and then she slaps you in the face with interesting writing and actual reasons behind the fanservicey appearance. I guess it's just that compared to many characters, she feels complete and realistic. Not that there's no flaw in the character whatsoever, but she's just very well done imo.

[Lorneus]

3 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

It's not exactly like the competition's fierce; Fates has what is almost-certainly the most woefully-written cast of any FE game. I don't think Charlotte is the best, but, considering how bad the cast is overall, I can definitely understand that opinion.

While Fates is victim to writing mishaps, I wouldn't say the characters are woefully written. There's just too much written for each. If they stuck to old support systems, the characters would've fared much better, but because of the marriage shenanigans, they were forced to write supports for characters that they had no idea what to do with, and thus undermined their efforts. It's a shame, really, cause even though characters across the series are quite often just as gimmicky or lackluster to those of Fates, Fates seems like it's putting it way too much in your face because it harps on about it within a billion unnecessary supports. Also, because there are so many supports written, most supports lack the length to make them truly engaging, so they really need to nail the interactions to a t for it to give a lasting impression upon first watch. If you skim the fat and the fanservice, you can actually find quite a few interesting characters in the cast. It's just a pain to do so and there's not much in the game that encourages it except high replayability.

[Ottservia]

Can we stop with this mentality that more supports = bad because that’s just blatently not true. If anything more supports are always a good thing. Why? Well more supports means more character interaction which means more opportunities to flesh out characterization and development therefore leading to more fleshed out characters as a whole. Less supports means less opportunities to flesh out those things thus resulting in more shallow characters. Meaning more supports are always better. And fates’s characters aren’t bad at all. How about Instead of being dismissive of characters solely based their archetype, you actually dig a little deeper and try analyzing them for what they are and what they represent. Trust me, there’s more beyond the surface you just gotta put in the effort to look for it

[Benice]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

. Meaning more supports are always better.

I disagree; not because I think we should limit characters to interacting with, like, three other characters (As was the case with GBA), but because adding more characterization via supports isn't necessarily a good thing given the way non-Tellius supports have worked.

For example, my least favorite thing about TH's characters was the utter volume of supports there were for each of them. Many of them were just filler, and even though there were good supports and interesting interactions in there, I could easily miss them in favor of reading through, say, Annette being clumsy for the fifth time, Ignatz painting for the third time, so on and so forth. I'm not getting anything interesting through these conversations, it wastes my time in a lot of ways, as well as wasting the Devs' time: Writing, voicing, or animating* all of these takes a lot of effort, and I don't think it's in the series' best interests to further expand the number of supports if they're facing deadline issues. Furthermore, I can assure you that boring characters from older games, such as Dorcas, are not improved by reading all of their supports. He is simply a rather uninteresting character to me, and no amount of extra dialogue reiterating the same ideas would really change him as a character.

Secondly, you can have really deep and meaningful characters without much dialogue or screentime at all, especially given that we're talking about video games. You can tell stories through gameplay very well: Games such as Dark Souls or Hollow Knight have deeply beloved characters and wonderful narratives with extremely minimal dialogue and NPCs who appear less than ten times in a playthrough. I don't think that more dialogue means better characterization, and would much rather see meaningful dialogue be prioritized over fluff, even if some of the latter is fine.

Moreover, I think reliance on post-Tellius styled supports as the primary method of characterization is a really poor idea. Aside from gameplay bonuses (which is variable from game to game), they give us only one-on-one character interactions up to four times. That's it. Because of this, we need a lot of supports in order to give some screentime and spotlight to our characters, and because they exist in pocket dimensions outside of stories as we've seen them, development often gets undone during supports, or they activate at inopportune times. On top of that, they aren't the best for world development given that we don't see recurring NPCs in these supports very often, and when we do, they also tend to appear very false and generic due to having no growth either. Additionally, characters can really wear out their welcome if they're forced into an inflated amount of similar situations as is the case with the mass-support style games.There are a lot of substitutions that can be used for supports; Tales-style Skits, Tellius-style Base convos, Berwick-style Citizen Requests, meaningful sidequests about characters and NPCs, etc. All of these accomplish the same idea as supports with lots of additional upsides both in gameplay and story. Heck, I have no problem with FE using any and all of these methods, even in addition to supports, and it'd be nice to have all the variety of characterization methods and could really help make the worlds feel alive. There's so much outside of supports that I don't think the solution to weaker characters or worlds is simply to add more supports.

Lastly, just as a bit of a final word against use of mass-supports to characterize: Jill (PoR/RD) is often considered to be one of FE's very best characters. She appears in one game where she appears in two or three base convos, has a subplot relevant to the gameplay and only a couple of supports that can be viewed in a playthrough; (I think Tellius lets you see five, but people who've played PoR could tell you for sure.) She then appears in a second game with no support conversations and IIRC another two or three base convos. I do not think that it's a coincidence that a character held in such high esteem is in the two games that majorly deviated from supports for characterization, nor do I think it's a coincidence that the games are generally considered to have some of the strongest stories and, for PoR's case, characters as well.

I don't disagree that underdeveloped casts aren't a good choice for modern FE, though. Fewer supports certainly doesn't mean better supports, as the GBA shows us this very eloquently, and FE does need characterization somehow, as RD's new characters prove. I certainly prefer more characterization than what GBA gives us, but I vehemently disagree with more supports being inherently better.

 

 

*Not that current supports are really animated, but given the series' rise in popularity, they feasibly could be in future installments.

Edited December 18, 2021 by Benice