Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

On 2/12/2018 at 12:39 PM, Lau said:

Fates > Sacred Stones

Archanea has some of the best worldbuilding in Fire Emblem.

I hate that Magvel is so stand aloneish, it causes it to seem really undeveloped.

Can you explain your first point? Other than the development issues,

Share this post


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

Can you explain your first point? Other than the development issues,

Sure.

Heads up, I played SS on the European Wii U VC, so I don't know about any differences there may be.

SS sounds like it was written by a six year old: "Eirika was confused" "They travelled". It's all very basic. At least throw in some fancy words.

Eirika and Ephraim...whilst I prefer them over Corrin, are still rather poor. Eirika is the better of the two, but she is just too naive. Ephraim is too brash and impulsive, too cocky. I don't like that in a Lord (I do tend to favour the Marth type, so that may be why).

Fates just has a stronger cast. I'm much more invested in the Nohrian Royals, the Awakening Trio, Kaze, Saizo, Midori, Asugi, Kaden, Keaton, Orochi, Niles, Rinkah, so on so forth. For SS, I only liked Artur, Natasha and Joshua. The rest of the cast was just too...average.

Fates has stronger gameplay, especially with Conquest, whereas SS was too easy, and almost a hassle to play through. I'd argue that Echoes had better gameplay than SS.

Lyon's whole thing about being nice one minute than absolute rotten the next got old very fast. At least Garon was consistent, mostly.

SS does have better character designs, though.

 

Friendly reminder that this is the Unpopular Opinions Thread, they're unpopular for a reason. Feel free to disagree with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a controversial opinion, but I am not sure if it is an unpopular one. I believe that Fates became what it was because Nintendo made an unintentional error in giving the Fire Emblem team the exposure and resources they would normally reserve for their flagship titles. In expanding the development team for the Fates games, Nintendo managed  to create a sprawling behemoth that couldn't tell one of its arms from the other. In other words, each section of the game had a lot of people working on it, but there wasn't enough thought -- or simply enough mechanisms put into place -- on how everything would fit together. This would explain why we have an absurdly massive manuscript from the guy who wrote the story, but still have a game full of mediocre character development and massive plot holes. Additionally, the game literally being split up into three separate entities probably didn't help make a more cohesive experience.

Soooo, yeah, I guess what I am trying to say is that Fates probably, technically, maybe has a good story. Can't wait for the remake in 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of my unpopular opinions:

  • Sacred Stones's plot is overrated; it's one of, if not the worst outright in the series. 
  • Sacred Stones has rather poor writing.
  • The Renais twins and Sigurd are the worst lords in the FE franchise (mind you, I'm including avatar lords).
  • With the exception of Glen and Duessel, Sacred Stones's villains were all mediocre to outright bad.
  • Lyon was a very poor attempt at a tragic villain.
  • The only real archetypes are Jeigan, Cain, Abel, and Lena - the rest have either been disappearing as the series goes on or are not well-defined enough.
  • Conquest's plot is nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be.
  • Awakening's plot, while it messed up in execution, is still better than the plots of certain other games (Sacred Stones and Sword of Seals).
  • Corrin and Azura had legitimate reasons for leaving the Nohrian siblings in the dark about Garon's true nature.
  • In the context of Awakening, Galeforce is overrated. Sure, it's a good skill, but it only really stands out in postgame. From a maingame perspective, you're unlikely to have it until near the end of the game, which isn't helped by Sumia and Cordelia matching up poorly against most enemies early on (they sure as hell don't like taking axe attacks, especially Sumia).
  • Sumia and Cordelia are overrated. I just don't find them to measure up to the goddesses of war that they get hyped up as being for reasons mentioned above (namely, stuck with lances when axe units are prominent), as well as the aforementioned overhyping of Galeforce.
Edited by Levant Mir Celestia

Share this post


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

SS sounds like it was written by a six year old: "Eirika was confused" "They travelled". It's all very basic. At least throw in some fancy words.

Eirika and Ephraim...whilst I prefer them over Corrin, are still rather poor. Eirika is the better of the two, but she is just too naive. Ephraim is too brash and impulsive, too cocky. I don't like that in a Lord (I do tend to favour the Marth type, so that may be why).

I mostly disagree with your opinion on FE8 (personally, I enjoy its characters quite a lot and find most of what I've seen from the 3DS's casts too tropey and blatant), but I do agree that the narration between chapters often sounds like a English schoolbook for beginners, and that the portrayal of the twins and their contrasts is lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been some time since I posted here, but I do have a few more unpopular opinions that crossed my mind:

I've never been a fan of Leo's normal design. It strikes me as dull and lackluster. Leo's hairstyle is just Marth's but with blonde hair, thus making it unoriginal. His armor doesn't look very appealing either. The dark armor looks too basic, even with the streaks of gold. The mini-cape also looks a bit... off. The shortness doesn't really look well when combined with that armor. In all honesty, Leo has the most forgettable design out of all the Fates royals. To me, nothing about his appearance really stands out in a positive way.

I also don't like Leo as much as other people do. No, I don't hate him, nor do I dislike him. He does have his moments, like his dialogue before his battle in Birthright Chapter 18 and some of his supports, but other than that, the rest of his dialogue didn't catch my attention that much. Even his inferiority complex didn't make me like him that much, but I think that's because I don't relate to his inferiority complex compared to other characters. His treatment towards Forrest in that one paralogue was disgusting too (though I will admit that I was glad to see how that was redeemed in their supports). I also found Leo to be rather lackluster as a unit. He couldn't hit hard compared to other mages despite being among the bulkier ones, and I also found his personal weapon to underwhelming compared to the other legendary weapons. In all, Leo is a character who is mainly just "meh" to me.

On that note, Support!Xander is the only Nohrian royal I really like. I fondly remember a good chunk of his supports compared to the other Nohrian royals, and I think he had the most likable personality of the bunch. Elise in Birthright was also quite charming, but in the other routes... she is annoying.

Moving on from Fates, I think Alm is overrated. Sure, he has likable traits such as his dorky moments in his explorations moments, and he acts like a chill person to hang around with, but there are some things that have been bugging me about Alm lately. One, he is way too forgiving for a lord, and this is best exemplified in Act 5. Berkut has constantly put Alm down throughout the entire game and killed his own fiancé in cold blood towards the end. Yet, Alm still forgives him and cries over his death after that battle? No. Alm really shouldn't feel any remorse toward Berkut for everything that the latter has done. I know that if I was in Alm's shoes, I would not be so willing to forgive such a family member that easily, especially if the latter committed a brutal murder like that. 

The other issue, and this is one that I've started to think about recently, is that Alm... doesn't really have any flaws. While he is meant to be more reckless compared to Celica, he is never shown to be punished for that in the game. The closest I can think of relating to it is when he falls for Nuibaba's trap, but he still makes it out perfectly fine without any major repercussions. I also think he gets a little too much praise from his allies. The only character from the playable cast that I can recall showing some doubt in Alm's actions is Clive during Act 3. It seems rather Gary Stu-ish, though perhaps I may be overlooking some things and might be convinced otherwise.

I really liked Alm after I first beat Echoes, but lately, I've been looking back at Alm and found my opinion of him lowering down, to the point he is a character I kind of like. I don't think he's the worst lord either, but I feel like he is not as well-written as I initially thought he was. 

Edited by Erureido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Sacred Stones's plot is overrated; it's one of, if not the worst outright in the series. 

I think a big problem with the plot of SS is that there's very little weight to what is happening. The lack of worldbuilding can make it hard to care for the twins plight as far as their country goes and because it goes down so early Grado doesn't seem even half as threatening as it should be. The monsters don't really convey a bigger threat either since they are kinda generic and incredibly easy to defeat most of the time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Erureido said:

The other issue, and this is one that I've started to think about recently, is that Alm... doesn't really have any flaws.

Honestly, i think that's an issue most male Lords have. Most male Lords don't have flaws and if they do, it's either brought up once and never again (Ephraim) or you have to dive down into Supports because the story isn't gonna show it (Roy). Then there's Corrin, who actually has a lot of flaws but the game praises for him. Sigurd's the only Lord to have flaws and actually get punished for them (too bad he's about as interesting watching paint dry).

Female Lords have the opposite problem. Most of them have a lot of flaws but the games treat them as if they were in the wrong and don't always let them overcome those flaws. Doesn't help that they tend to be viewed as idiots by the community (or in the case of Micaiah, a Mary Sue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my unpopular stance: I hate, hate, HATE mounted units. Nerf them all. The better the movement, the lower their bases and growths should be. If you are mounted, using boots does not improve your Move. Multiple weapon ranks should only happen upon promotion. When assigning weapon ranks and skills, treat having a mount as a skill or weapon rank when deciding unit balance. You get two Xmas cavaliers at the beginning of damn near every game. They don't both need sword and lance ranks. Give one a sword rank, and give the other a lance rank. Give a horseback unit decent def (not good, decent) or decent res (once again, not good, decent), and tank the other stat. When promoting, they should either get +1 Move and damn near nothing else, OR decent promotion bonuses, and no move bonus. Canto should disable their ability to double. Forced dismounting indoors should come back.

Would any one of these changes balance out mounted units? No. I would implement all of them. Every game in the series, with the exception of, like, Radiant Dawn, is dominated by mounted units. Their availability is pervasive, and they trade next to nothing for their superior mobility. There is never enough risk in sending all of your mounted units ahead of the rest of your army and having them gobble up all of the experience, with the exception that flyers are typically vulnerable to archers and wind magic, and there is almost never a way to have your infantry and armor knights catch up.

Life is too easy when you're a mounted unit. Screw them, and the horse/wyvern/flying horse/giant bird they rode in on.

Share this post


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

Here's my unpopular stance: I hate, hate, HATE mounted units. Nerf them all. The better the movement, the lower their bases and growths should be. If you are mounted, using boots does not improve your Move. Multiple weapon ranks should only happen upon promotion. When assigning weapon ranks and skills, treat having a mount as a skill or weapon rank when deciding unit balance. You get two Xmas cavaliers at the beginning of damn near every game. They don't both need sword and lance ranks. Give one a sword rank, and give the other a lance rank. Give a horseback unit decent def (not good, decent) or decent res (once again, not good, decent), and tank the other stat. When promoting, they should either get +1 Move and damn near nothing else, OR decent promotion bonuses, and no move bonus. Canto should disable their ability to double. Forced dismounting indoors should come back.

Would any one of these changes balance out mounted units? No. I would implement all of them. Every game in the series, with the exception of, like, Radiant Dawn, is dominated by mounted units. Their availability is pervasive, and they trade next to nothing for their superior mobility. There is never enough risk in sending all of your mounted units ahead of the rest of your army and having them gobble up all of the experience, with the exception that flyers are typically vulnerable to archers and wind magic, and there is almost never a way to have your infantry and armor knights catch up.

Life is too easy when you're a mounted unit. Screw them, and the horse/wyvern/flying horse/giant bird they rode in on.

Preach it, brother!

Though, there are a few things I'd like to add:

  • By how much do you mean "damn near nothing else" in the event that they get +1 Movement?  2 points at most in any stat?
  • I feel like having Canto prevent the user from making follow-up attacks is too extreme.  Do you realize how terrible Pegasus Knights would be if they couldn't double?
    • Speaking of which, if fliers are included in the mounted units that need to be nerfed, I think they should at least have better stats than cavalry (though still worse than infantry), since anti-flier weapons are so much more common than anti-horse ones.
  • Mounted units should also have lower caps overall than infantry.
  • I would also be good with the idea of forced dismounting if the affected units were limited to one weapon type.  But how would it be determined?  Would a unit's new weapon type upon promotion be designated a secondary weapon that can't be used indoors?
    • How much Movement penalty did mounted units receive in Radiant Dawn?  Because if we were to use this system instead, I would give mounted units the same Movement as armored units indoors.
  • Heavy weapon variants (Blades/Greatlances/Poleaxes/possibly Greatbows if we ever see those) should either be made explicitly two-handed or otherwise too awkward for mounted units to wield.
Edited by Von Ithipathachai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Sumia and Cordelia are overrated. I just don't find them to measure up to the goddesses of war that they get hyped up as being for reasons mentioned above (namely, stuck with lances when axe units are prominent), as well as the aforementioned overhyping of Galeforce.

I usually put up with Pega-Sumia - who is WAY too fragile to be fighting in this war, by the way - until I can swap her to Great Knight, at which point she obliterates, but that may be a bit too lategame to apply here. I use Cordelia because I like her, but a little over half the time I swap her over to Merc the second she can use that Second Seal both for your mentioned reason and because I find Pegs to be a touch squishy and Merc fixes the issue for the most part. The Weapon Triangle doesn't feel as big of a deal in Awakening compared to other games to me, though.

2 hours ago, Erureido said:

Leo's hairstyle is just Marth's but with blonde hair

WHAAAAA?!?! HOLY SNAP I KNEW THERE WAS A REASON I DIDN'T LIKE HIS HAIR! I've been trying to figure out why his hair bugged me for forever, thank you for bringing words to my feelings!

6 hours ago, FRZNHeir said:

Can you explain your first point? Other than the development issues,

Completely unrelated to anything on this thread, I believe I just realized who your current Avatar is. As a certain albino genius once said: "Brother, omega props."

Share this post


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

Here's my unpopular stance: I hate, hate, HATE mounted units. Nerf them all. The better the movement, the lower their bases and growths should be. If you are mounted, using boots does not improve your Move. Multiple weapon ranks should only happen upon promotion. When assigning weapon ranks and skills, treat having a mount as a skill or weapon rank when deciding unit balance. You get two Xmas cavaliers at the beginning of damn near every game. They don't both need sword and lance ranks. Give one a sword rank, and give the other a lance rank. Give a horseback unit decent def (not good, decent) or decent res (once again, not good, decent), and tank the other stat. When promoting, they should either get +1 Move and damn near nothing else, OR decent promotion bonuses, and no move bonus. Canto should disable their ability to double. Forced dismounting indoors should come back.

Would any one of these changes balance out mounted units? No. I would implement all of them. Every game in the series, with the exception of, like, Radiant Dawn, is dominated by mounted units. Their availability is pervasive, and they trade next to nothing for their superior mobility. There is never enough risk in sending all of your mounted units ahead of the rest of your army and having them gobble up all of the experience, with the exception that flyers are typically vulnerable to archers and wind magic, and there is almost never a way to have your infantry and armor knights catch up.

Life is too easy when you're a mounted unit. Screw them, and the horse/wyvern/flying horse/giant bird they rode in on.

 

1 hour ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Preach it, brother!

Though, there are a few things I'd like to add:

  • By how much do you mean "damn near nothing else" in the event that they get +1 Movement?  2 points at most in any stat?
  • I feel like having Canto prevent the user from making follow-up attacks is too extreme.  Do you realize how terrible Pegasus Knights would be if they couldn't double?
    • Speaking of which, if fliers are included in the mounted units that need to be nerfed, I think they should at least have better stats than cavalry (though still worse than infantry), since anti-flier weapons are so much more common than anti-horse ones.
  • Mounted units should also have lower caps overall than infantry.
  • I would also be good with the idea of forced dismounting if the affected units were limited to one weapon type.  But how would it be determined?  Would a unit's new weapon type upon promotion be designated a secondary weapon that can't be used indoors?
    • How much Movement penalty did mounted units receive in Radiant Dawn?  Because if we were to use this system instead, I would give mounted units the same Movement as armored units indoors.
  • Heavy weapon variants (Blades/Greatlances/Poleaxes/possibly Greatbows if we ever see those) should either be made explicitly two-handed or otherwise too awkward for mounted units to wield.

The domination that mounted units have had over this series has always bugged me. It feels like since at least Genealogy they've always been the absolute best choices in the game. Between canto, multiple weapon types, and overall balanced and high stats mounts make everyone else irrelevant. No other class lines or unit types like armors have any inherent abilities that allow them to compete with these guys and IS has done nothing to nerf mounts or buff other units that actually makes a difference. I really hope FE Switch does something with other classes to give them an edge over mounts.

Also in Radiant Dawn I believe all cavaliers and fliers received a two move penalty on the indoor maps along with an inability to climb ledges. It was a step in the right direction but a lot of design choices in Radiant Dawn just stayed in Radiant Dawn. I also kind of felt like they weren't as over powered in the game since the back half of it was mostly routs; I mean whats the point of having more movement when all the enemies run at you themselves.

Share this post


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

I also kind of felt like they weren't as over powered in the game since the back half of it was mostly routs; I mean whats the point of having more movement when all the enemies run at you themselves.

Doesn't that just explain the benefit Armors have over Horses - being able to just sit there and tank?

Share this post


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

Preach it, brother!

Though, there are a few things I'd like to add:

  • By how much do you mean "damn near nothing else" in the event that they get +1 Movement?  2 points at most in any stat?
  • I feel like having Canto prevent the user from making follow-up attacks is too extreme.  Do you realize how terrible Pegasus Knights would be if they couldn't double?
    • Speaking of which, if fliers are included in the mounted units that need to be nerfed, I think they should at least have better stats than cavalry (though still worse than infantry), since anti-flier weapons are so much more common than anti-horse ones.
  • Mounted units should also have lower caps overall than infantry.
  • I would also be good with the idea of forced dismounting if the affected units were limited to one weapon type.  But how would it be determined?  Would a unit's new weapon type upon promotion be designated a secondary weapon that can't be used indoors?
    • How much Movement penalty did mounted units receive in Radiant Dawn?  Because if we were to use this system instead, I would give mounted units the same Movement as armored units indoors.
  • Heavy weapon variants (Blades/Greatlances/Poleaxes/possibly Greatbows if we ever see those) should either be made explicitly two-handed or otherwise too awkward for mounted units to wield.

Well, those are some relevant questions that I definitely have well-thought out and cogent answers to! >_> Allow me to attempt to do so:

  • It depends on how promotion works in the game. in the 3DS era, two or three +1s and a single +2 (maybe +3 HP) would be plenty generous. In the GBA era the promotion gains were considerably more stingy, so all I would personally give them is +1 HP and +1 to another stat (maybe Skl or Def). They already gain more Move and a new weapon rank, so I have no sympathy for them.
  • I do include flyers in my general mount-hate! Flying units have the undisputed best mobility in the series, bar none. As for Pegasus Knights, it's true that they generally have underwhelming Strength, but consider that their primary targets are magic users, the squishiest unit type in the game. If a peg knight isn't designed to kill mages without doubling, give them a skill kinda like light magic users had in Sacred Stones, but for magic users instead of monsters, or some other ability that crushes tome users. Fire emblem offers such a wide variety of unit types that specializing them isn't such a bad idea.
  • For promoted units and dismounting I say let them keep their weapon ranks. Indoors they would already just be infantry with lower stats, so what's the harm in letting them carry around multiple weapons?
  • In my fantasy land of nerfed mounts they would have lower max weapon ranks than, say, weapon specialized infantry and armors, and that would probably be enough of a restriction. This would be a rare case of letting real life bleed into game design, as historically cavalry actually wielded bigger and longer weapons into battle than footsoldiers. There would still be certain weapons designed specifically for other classes that would remain restricted, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

Doesn't that just explain the benefit Armors have over Horses - being able to just sit there and tank?

Radiant Dawn's a rare exception in that case. The game's so rout heavy toward the end that having extra movement doesn't really help. In most other games seize and defeat the boss are the primary mission types so units with more move excel vastly over knights and even in defense maps mounts will still out perform knights because of there all around higher stats whereas knights who specialize in defense and strength will be unlikely to one round enemies and serve a little more than walls. Cavs will just run all over taking out everything in sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

More of my unpopular opinions:

  • Sacred Stones's plot is overrated; it's one of, if not the worst outright in the series. 
  • Sacred Stones has rather poor writing.
  • The Renais twins and Sigurd are the worst lords in the FE franchise (mind you, I'm including avatar lords).
  • With the exception of Glen and Duessel, Sacred Stones's villains were all mediocre to outright bad.
  • Lyon was a very poor attempt at a tragic villain.
  • The only real archetypes are Jeigan, Cain, Abel, and Lena - the rest have either been disappearing as the series goes on or are not well-defined enough.
  • Conquest's plot is nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be.
  • Awakening's plot, while it messed up in execution, is still better than the plots of certain other games (Sacred Stones and Sword of Seals).

I'm scared by how much I find myself agreeing with you on multiple things concerning Fire Emblem.

Anyway, more from me!

  • Fates fails to portray Leo's supposed "smartness". (Garon: KILL THEM ALL! CORRIN INCLUDED! BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Leo: What do you mean, father is evil?)
  • I hate Support!Xander just as much as I do Story!Xander. The guy made Peri his retainer because she is hot (which she really isn't, but different strokes, I guess), I mean, come on! To say nothing of the fact that the supports make him come across like a giant hypocrite
  • I also dislike Forrest. Attacking a crying, likely traumatized child with a LEGENDARY EFFIN' TOME is never justified. Never. He's also superfluous, as we already have a fashion-loving character that does the whole thing 1000x better in Fates: fan favourite Oboro, which brings me to...
  • I like Oboro, but I don't see why or how she is THE fan favourite.
  • As someone who loves animals, I can't stand Kiragi. I get that you need to hunt to eat in alleged medieval times, but I think they shouldn't have made it so Kiragi enjoys killing animals. It makes him come across as a complete psychopath (which he is, judging by the retarded look in his portrait). Him being the son of one of my least favourite characters period and one of the single most annoying characters in the entire franchise (right up there with Ricken and Sothe) doesn't help, either.
  • A longer, more developed Heirs of Fate should have been Revelation in a style similar to FE4, in that the kids in that route take their stats and class sets from their parents in the other two routes, if available. If not, give them generic growth rates and class sets. In exchange, leave the children out of Birthright and Conquest (also, restrict the availability of Kaze and Silas to Birthright and Conquest, respectively. Jakob to Conquest, as well).
  • Corrin isn't nearly as shitty as people make them out to be
  • Fates' LG options suck, character-wise.
  • Of the "Super Sayian" banana twins of Warriors, at least Lianna is as good / likeable as some of the past lords in the series (she's also really fun to play as)
  • I really don't like FE6 gameplay-wise. Ambush spawns, wonky RNG, tedious map design, a lord that promotes right at the end of the game and who is pretty useless in general, only a handful of (barely) usable units. The normal map theme in this game is also really annoying
  • Ambush spawns in general disqualify an FE difficulty level from being anything but unfair
  • Despite its flaws, Awakening's story is one of the best in the series (from what I've played)
  • Shadow Dragon had solid / good map design all around (even if you could warp skip the entire thing). It's endgame was especially fun to play
  • Echoes' endgame is one of the best in the series, both in terms of music and map design
  • Idoun, however easy she may be, is the best final boss in the series in terms of backstory and lore, followed closely by Medeus, Duma and post-Echoes Grima

Share this post


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

Sigurd's the only Lord to have flaws and actually get punished for them (too bad he's about as interesting watching paint dry).

Leif says hi. Granted, he doesn't suffer the gravest consequence like Sigurd does, but he does effectively get his mother-figure captured, which leads to her being forced to fight her adopted daughter and get turned to stone, it leads to him losing land he fought hard to win over, one of his advisors dies to cover Leif's tracks... Just in general a bunch of bad shit happens to Leif because of mistakes he makes that are inherent to his character.

As you'd expect when a 15 year old who has spent his entire life on the run is forced to lead a resistance army.

7 hours ago, Armagon said:

Female Lords have the opposite problem. Most of them have a lot of flaws but the games treat them as if they were in the wrong and don't always let them overcome those flaws. Doesn't help that they tend to be viewed as idiots by the community (or in the case of Micaiah, a Mary Sue).

This is true. Female lords with flaws are constantly trashed in the fandom. For as much as people complain about characters like Ike and Ephriam for being giant Gary Stus, it seems like this same portion of the fandom is quick to jump on people like Celica for listening to Jedeh's promises, which are EXACTLY what Celica wanted to hear.

Though again, I've never understood the Mary Sue complaints of Micaiah. For as much as she's basically the closest thing to Jesus we've ever had in FE, a ton of bad shit happens to her, and all of her "major wins"(Big air quotes here) are all calculated by other people, and ultimately her actions just lead to more suffering on her own part.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


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

I get that you need to hunt to eat in alleged medieval times, but I think they shouldn't have made it so Kiragi enjoys killing animals. It makes him come across as a complete psychopath (which he is, judging by the retarded look in his portrait).

How exactly does hunting animals make someone a psychopath? Is everyone that hunts for sport a psychopath? Even in medieval times, there were people who hunted for sport. Kiragi isn't General Zaroff.

6 hours ago, Slumber said:

This is true. Female lords with flaws are constantly trashed in the fandom. For as much as people complain about characters like Ike and Ephriam for being giant Gary Stus, it seems like this same portion of the fandom is quick to jump on people like Celica for listening to Jedeh's promises, which are EXACTLY what Celica wanted to hear.

It's one of the biggest things that frustrate me with the fandom. I know the real culprit is the writing for making female Lords as if they were in the wrong but like, you got criticizing Ike, Ephraim and even Alm recently for being flawless and want characters with more flaws. Then, after Corrin gets praised for his flaws (in the game, not in the fandom obviously) and never getting punished for them, a lot of people wanted Lords who have flaws and get punished for them (because only Sigurd and Leif had that). Then Celica comes in, has flaws, gets punished for them and now you've got people saying she's a bad character for trusting Jedah. Should Celica not have trusted Jedah? Yes. However, it's her naivety that led to her trusting him. That doesn't make her a bad character. A similar deal happened with Eirika.  People criticize flawless Lords like Ike, Ephraim and Alm but they also criticize female Lords for having flaws and getting punished for them. I know not everyone who complains about one complains about the other but it's frustrating seeing that hypocrisy.

As i said before, the real issue with the writing of most female Lords is that they're always treated as being in the wrong and never being given chances to overcome their flaws. But other than that, i feel like most female Lords are better written than most male Lords, since they actually have flaws and get punished for them, something that most male Lords can't say.

I suppose another issue with female Lords is that they are never alone; they always have a male Lord beside them. Said male Lord gets way more spotlight than the female Lord (as seen in Radiant Dawn where Ike steals Micaiah's spotlight or in FE7 where Lyn isn't as relevant as Eliwood and Hector). Even in the spin-offs, we see that duality with Alfonse and Sharena and Rowan and Lianna (but at least in those cases, they are presented as equals). Really hoping FE16 is the first FE with a standalone female Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Armagon said:

How exactly does hunting animals make someone a psychopath? Is everyone that hunts for sport a psychopath? Even in medieval times, there were people who hunted for sport. Kiragi isn't General Zaroff.

It's one of the biggest things that frustrate me with the fandom. I know the real culprit is the writing for making female Lords as if they were in the wrong but like, you got criticizing Ike, Ephraim and even Alm recently for being flawless and want characters with more flaws. Then, after Corrin gets praised for his flaws (in the game, not in the fandom obviously) and never getting punished for them, a lot of people wanted Lords who have flaws and get punished for them (because only Sigurd and Leif had that). Then Celica comes in, has flaws, gets punished for them and now you've got people saying she's a bad character for trusting Jedah. Should Celica not have trusted Jedah? Yes. However, it's her naivety that led to her trusting him. That doesn't make her a bad character. A similar deal happened with Eirika.  People criticize flawless Lords like Ike, Ephraim and Alm but they also criticize female Lords for having flaws and getting punished for them. I know not everyone who complains about one complains about the other but it's frustrating seeing that hypocrisy.

As i said before, the real issue with the writing of most female Lords is that they're always treated as being in the wrong and never being given chances to overcome their flaws. But other than that, i feel like most female Lords are better written than most male Lords, since they actually have flaws and get punished for them, something that most male Lords can't say.

I suppose another issue with female Lords is that they are never alone; they always have a male Lord beside them. Said male Lord gets way more spotlight than the female Lord (as seen in Radiant Dawn where Ike steals Micaiah's spotlight or in FE7 where Lyn isn't as relevant as Eliwood and Hector). Even in the spin-offs, we see that duality with Alfonse and Sharena and Rowan and Lianna (but at least in those cases, they are presented as equals). Really hoping FE16 is the first FE with a standalone female Lord.

Anyone who kills for fun isn't right in the head in my opinion, whether it's animals or people, it makes no difference to me. Big emphasis on "TO ME".
My point was that they made Kiragi enjoy it TOO MUCH, like, nearly Peri levels of bloodlust, to the point where it becomes hard to even root for him when he's no better than the supposed "bad guys".
Also, yes, animal cruelty is considered a symptom for psychopathy, though I didn't imply Kiragi IS one, I just said it makes him SEEM like one.

As for the bolded part of your post, let me just say: THANK YOU!
I still stand by my opinion that Celica and Eirika are both among the most realistic (and best) characters in the entire franchise, which is probably another unpopular opinion.
I also really like Micaiah, despite everything.

Edited by DragonFlames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the people who criticize Ike, Robin, etc for being Stus and people who criticize Celica, Eirika, etc. for being flawed are different.  

Like, maybe there’s some over negative hypocrites scattered here and there, but I think it’s largely a case of different people disliking different things and being vocal at different times.

Share this post


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

Anyone who kills for fun isn't right in the head in my opinion, whether it's animals or people, it makes no difference to me. Big emphasis on "TO ME".

My point was that they made Kiragi enjoy it TOO MUCH, like, nearly Peri levels of bloodlust, to the point where it becomes hard to even root for him when he's no better than the supposed "bad guys".

Fair enough

But as for the bolded part, how does Kiragi have nearly Peri levels of bloodlust? I don't recall him ever trying to kill a comrade because they spilled tea or wanting to go massacre a village because someone told him hunting for sport was bad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Fair enough

But as for the bolded part, how does Kiragi have nearly Peri levels of bloodlust? I don't recall him ever trying to kill a comrade because they spilled tea or wanting to go massacre a village because someone told him hunting for sport was bad.

 

I don't think he ever goes that far, but displaying enjoyment over harming animals IS one of the commonly used red flags to identify violent psychopathy.

Of course, I'm talking about people who enjoy the act of harming animals. Not talking about people who go deer hunting and get excited when they get a buck with more points than they've ever gotten before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I don't think he ever goes that far, but displaying enjoyment over harming animals IS one of the commonly used red flags to identify violent psychopathy.

Of course, I'm talking about people who enjoy the act of harming animals. Not talking about people who go deer hunting and get excited when they get a buck with more points than they've ever gotten before.

Here I always assumed he just took his kills back to the camp as food for the army.

I guess that comes from the fact that my dad loves hunting, but says you should at least eat whatever you kill.  Or something to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents...

Hunting for food is fine, heck, the FE cast needs to get their meat from somewhere. It's when people hunt for the sake of it, like fox hunting, which sickens me.

 

I like Nailah, but the addition of the wolves in RD was pointless.

The Serenes Massacre was saddening in PoR, and I adored Reyson and Leanne - they made me favour the Herons out of any of the Laguz. Come RD...you're a Heron! You're a Heron! You're half a Heron! Jfc, I thought they were supposed to be wiped out? I understand the different circumstances which helped their survival, but come on...

Share this post


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

How exactly does hunting animals make someone a psychopath? Is everyone that hunts for sport a psychopath? Even in medieval times, there were people who hunted for sport. Kiragi isn't General Zaroff.

I have this wonderful book on post-1648 to 1815 Europe, long after the Medieval period (they had Flintlocks and much greater human resources than Medieval monarchs), but here are a few numbers from it in a fascinating section on hunting:

  • On October 5th, 1789- Louis XVI (the headless one) killed 81 items of game.
    • December 1775, he killed 1564 items total.
    • The entire year of 1775, he killed 8424 items.
  • On Jun 30th 1706, two grandsons of Louis XIV (the Sun King) killed 1500 partridges.
  • In 1750 Louis XV killed 318 partrigdes in three hours, 135 on a different day in an hour and a half, 1700 items with his entourage on Sep 13 1738.
  • Between 1748 and 1785, the entire French royal family is recorded as having killed 924717 items of game.
  • A nobody who ruled a small German state named Margrave Karl Friedrich von Brandenburg-Ansbach hawked (not including other forms of hunting) 34429 items of game between 1730 and 1755.
  • In two weeks, Duke Karl Eugen of Wurttemburg drove 5000 wild animals into a lake and thus their death.
    • The same place later killed 6000 deer and 2500 boar on a special occasion. 

...I'm just amazed Europe still has wild animals.

The Germans were probably the worst, their "eingestelellte Jagd"  (trans. "Park hunting") involved rounding up wild animals into a caged area and then just shooting at them. It was not sport to many, since there was no hunt, no chase, just slaughtering fish in a barrel your servants shoved them in with no escape. Even Shota Tobin could do it.

The Germans also had fox-tossing. You take fox, put them in a bag, and throw them back and forth midair to someone else also with a bag. If the fox lives through all the tossing around, you club them to death at the end. Augustus III Elector of Saxony and King of Poland in the whole of 1747 had: 414 foxes, 281 hares, 39 badgers, and 9 wild cats tossed to death.

England favored hunting foxes (which they didn't eat, but the French did), since the forests for stags were largely gone at this point and saved that for the royals (the French royals also liked stag hunting and would spend hours hunting a lone stag, falconry was not what they liked so much).

There were a few critics of hunting at this time, but not so many as to start a real public campaign against hunting. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia being one, a fairly "Enlightened Despot", albeit an anti-Semite (expectable for the age) and rather aristocratically elitist.

Another however, was Peter the Great of Russia (which never saw hunting as a noble preserve), a man with mistresses, who forced his serfs to dig with their hands the foundations of St. Petersburg, who would lock people in a room with a bucket of hard liquor until they drank it all, and had his son abused to death. The son abuse itself would classify him as being a bit psychotic some would argue. So hunting is meaningless here. And of course, Russia the icebox lands of absolutism wasn't, and isn't to this day, the most enlightened in Europe sans hunting by several leagues.

 

So in short, Kiragi could certainly fit in with Early Modern time period, which isn't even Medieval. Him being a royal means he'd be able to live like the Bourbons if he wished- all of Hoshido is his quarry. Give him Camilla/Elise as mom or friend him with Forrest and suddenly Nohr is open as well.

 

As for primitive Humanity hunting- well earliest humans were gatherer-hunters. But note the "savage" was not always "noble". The Native Americans of the Great Plains would when the bison population was high would use "bison jumps"- you'd lure a group of bison into a stampede off a cliff to their deaths. Archaeological evidence has shown only the top carcasses were often cut into- all the bodies below the top of dead pile were left to rot, neither flesh for food nor bone and skin for clothes and tools collected. Early humans could be just as wasteful and inefficient as modern ones- they just lacked the modern industrial means for modern industrial scale wasting.

 

FE has included hunting before, Rebecca and Neimi liked it, and Lethe and Mordecai bring it up in a Base Conversation in RD. Perhaps it's just the tendency of the 3DS games exaggerating traits that may have existed in earlier FEs, a little too far perhaps.

 

2 minutes ago, Lau said:

The Serenes Massacre was saddening in PoR, and I adored Reyson and Leanne - they made me favour the Herons out of any of the Laguz. Come RD...you're a Heron! You're a Heron! You're half a Heron! Jfc, I thought they were supposed to be wiped out? I understand the different circumstances which helped their survival, but come on...

Factoring the additions of RD, there are only 5 survivors. Four White Herons (you can't forget Lorazieh), and one Black, who can't reproduce real Herons anymore probably thanks to power loss, so the Black Herons are extinct. Rafiel is married to Nailah and Stefan says different Laguz Tribes can't interbreed, so only Reyson and Leanne will be continuing the lineage, they won't recover to a healthy population for hundreds of years. Being a Heron Branded doesn't matter so much, since even if Miccy has the powers, she isn't an actual Heron.

I can see your point though. Adding too many special survivors does downgrade things even if logistically the tragedy is still a massive tragedy.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...