what u DONT want to see in FE Switch

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, Pegasus Knight said:

Am i the only one who wants Magic to work like echoes?

Actually, there is a very good reason why magic costs HP to use in that game while the tomes in the other games have durability. 

Here's how Kaga had described magic way back when:

Quote

Comment: Originally primitive deities existed at Akaneia and people believed these deities existed in all things. To lead mankind, Gotoh utilised the power of these deities. Magic (both offensive and recovery) is about as advanced as the dragon race’s technology, but it was difficult and dangerous for humans to use. Gotoh convinced humans to borrow the deities’ powers and warned them at the same time. So fire magic comes from the deity of fire, wind magic is borrowed from the deity of wind and etc. Magic is thus the technology where one harnesses energy that exists naturally. Spell books and staves can be thought of as vessels that store this energy. To release this energy requires a certain amount of skill, such as by chanting keywords or through mental control techniques. In order to acquire a sufficient skill level, one must undergo self-training. Prayers to the deities seems to reveal the keywords, while it also raises one’s mental capacity. Meanwhile, to protect the most powerful spells, like Aura or Excalibur, Gotoh attached a contract to them so that only the user could wield them. The same kind of protection was also placed on the Falchion.

^ This shows that the durability in the magic tomes is in fact due to the tome having run out of the energy that was stored in it. And in Echoes, when one uses magic, they aren't using tomes. This is because they are actually using their own body's energy for the magic spells. Thus it consumes HP. 

Very smart when you think about it.

[Shadow Mir]

19 hours ago, Pegasus Knight said:

i need them to remake all the past awakening games!!!! i need to play them! come on IS pull a  gamefreak for me here!

How about no? Because I din't want IS playing "how low can we go?" with its remakes... (I still don't trust IS with remakes)

2 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Less characters mean that less of them get benched, and more focus can be put on fleshing out each character, limiting the amount of "one-note" characters we get. It also means that every character has a use, no matter how nice or unfair the RNG has been with them.

Though of course, this also has its problems, as permadeath hits much harder than it would otherwise, and not everyone likes the "work with what you've got" playstyle.

Counterpoint: Sacred Stones. It had one of the smallest casts, but quality was certainly nowhere to be found... most of its characters were Archanea-level forgettable.

[Pegasus Knight]

1 minute ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

How about no? Because I din't want IS playing "how low can we go?" with its remakes... (I still don't trust IS with remakes)

Counterpoint: Sacred Stones. It had one of the smallest casts, but quality was certainly nowhere to be found... most of its characters were Archanea-level forgettable.

what exactly do u mean with that?

[Shadow Mir]

Just now, Pegasus Knight said:

what exactly do u mean with that?

I don't want them stinking it up with their remakes the way the did with Shadow Dragon. Simple as that.

[Pegasus Knight]

Just now, Levant Mir Celestia said:

I don't want them stinking it up with their remakes the way the did with Shadow Dragon. Simple as that.

i havent play it so i dont know... but i want to play them all so remakes for me are new FE games so....

[Shrimpica]

Ok, i know i am in the minority here, but can someone explain to me why so many people want Weapon durability back? I get if for Status staves or siege weapons, since they would be op otherwise and are usually limited to Treasure chests/drops, or 1-2 shops. But for Weapons, the only upside i see is micromanaging, but...

-You usually have a shitton of Money, so it doesn't matter anyway. The only game where i really had to think about durability was Radiant Dawn (especially Part 3), but otherwise i had enough money to fill the whole convoy

-Hoarding. Hoarding and hoarding. Leave all strong weapons to the end and keep using Iron/Steel weapons

-Outside of Weight/AS loss, there is no use in not using the weapon that will bring you the kill. Except if it's a weapon you want to hoard and you think it's not late enough yet to use.

Meanwhile in Fates (Conquest, due to limited income), if you ignore broken forging:

-You can't buy every weapon because they get very expensive quickly, not to mention it's stock limited before shop lvl3/late game. (I am midgame in my current Lunatic run, ~17k Gold, weapon cost 2k-8k. I have to decide if investing in a weapon is worth it or not)

-''Use Silver Weapon and kill, but lose stats, or Steel but no kill?'' ''More speed but less def? but i might get killed in EP then hmmm'' Or similiar choices as these affect units directly in battle (before i started forging ofc).

-encourages the use of different weapon without hoarding.

 

Tbh, i really think they should continue balancing what Fates brought us (nerfing shurikens/Knifes, no forging Irons/Steels so Silvers actually matter, Stat loss not so big, etc), instead of just bringing a mechanic that never really mattered outside of few games.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Shrimperor

[saisymbolic]

21 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

Ok, i know i am in the minority here, but can someone explain to me why so many people want Weapon durability back? I get if for Status staves or siege weapons, since they would be op otherwise and are usually limited to Treasure chests/drops, or 1-2 shops. But for Weapons, the only upside i see is micromanaging, but...

Personally, I don't care whether it stays or goes. But, I suppose if I were to guess why people would want it back is because:

A) having to account for weapon durability ties into strategy. I don't personally think this at all but maybe someone does.

B) weapons actually do wear down after repeated use so it's a bit realistic.

C) some people don't like the penalty system Fates introduced to balance not having durability. This worked in some ways and didn't work in other ways.

D) some people just like having durability.

If durability was to return, I think there should be some kind of smelting or weapon repair introduced into the forging system of the next game. I don't know how it would work, but I think it's way better to smelt old weapons to create new ones instead of selling the shitty old ones to a merchant for 35 gold.

[Shadow Mir]

59 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

Ok, i know i am in the minority here, but can someone explain to me why so many people want Weapon durability back? I get if for Status staves or siege weapons, since they would be op otherwise and are usually limited to Treasure chests/drops, or 1-2 shops. But for Weapons, the only upside i see is micromanaging, but...

-You usually have a shitton of Money, so it doesn't matter anyway. The only game where i really had to think about durability was Radiant Dawn (especially Part 3), but otherwise i had enough money to fill the whole convoy

-Hoarding. Hoarding and hoarding. Leave all strong weapons to the end and keep using Iron/Steel weapons

-Outside of Weight/AS loss, there is no use in not using the weapon that will bring you the kill. Except if it's a weapon you want to hoard and you think it's not late enough yet to use.

Meanwhile in Fates (Conquest, due to limited income), if you ignore broken forging:

-You can't buy every weapon because they get very expensive quickly, not to mention it's stock limited before shop lvl3/late game. (I am midgame in my current Lunatic run, ~17k Gold, weapon cost 2k-8k. I have to decide if investing in a weapon is worth it or not)

-''Use Silver Weapon and kill, but lose stats, or Steel but no kill?'' ''More speed but less def? but i might get killed in EP then hmmm'' Or similiar choices as these affect units directly in battle (before i started forging ofc).

-encourages the use of different weapon without hoarding.

 

Tbh, i really think they should continue balancing what Fates brought us (nerfing shurikens/Knifes, no forging Irons/Steels so Silvers actually matter, Stat loss not so big, etc), instead of just bringing a mechanic that never really mattered outside of few games.

Honestly, I'd say durability became silly the moment Sacred Stones came along - practically every game since allowed you to buy weapons before battle. And then there's Awakening, which brought Armsthrift to the table, in addition to infinite Hammerne staves (though they're rare).

[Slumber]

34 minutes ago, saisymbolic said:

Personally, I don't care whether it stays or goes. But, I suppose if I were to guess why people would want it back is because:

A) having to account for weapon durability ties into strategy. I don't personally think this at all but maybe someone does.

B) weapons actually do wear down after repeated use so it's a bit realistic.

C) some people don't like the penalty system Fates introduced to balance not having durability. This worked in some ways and didn't work in other ways.

D) some people just like having durability.

If durability was to return, I think there should be some kind of smelting or weapon repair introduced into the forging system of the next game. I don't know how it would work, but I think it's way better to smelt old weapons to create new ones instead of selling the shitty old ones to a merchant for 35 gold.

I still think they should bring back the FE4 weapon repair system.

Bringing back weapon durability, but making weapons repairable at the cost of money would still discourage overuse of the more expensive/powerful weapons, but you wouldn't be sitting on them for most of the game like people tend to do when they get rare, limited resource items/weapons.

Certainly preferable to infinite use forged Iron weapons that are super strong and have no drawbacks compared to every other weapon.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Slumber

[ElectiveToast]

21 hours ago, Pegasus Knight said:

i dont want to be that guy especially since i have only played 3 FE games so i judge only by these BUT FE characters are more or less tropes so they are either of your tastes or not.... they hardly have any meat ....

But that’s my point. The characters of the newer games are all one-dimensional except the ones in Echoes. I hope they don’t do a Fates and just fart out characters. 

Edited December 22, 2017 by ElectiveToast

[Lord_Grima]

1 hour ago, Shrimperor said:

Ok, i know i am in the minority here, but can someone explain to me why so many people want Weapon durability back? I get if for Status staves or siege weapons, since they would be op otherwise and are usually limited to Treasure chests/drops, or 1-2 shops. But for Weapons, the only upside i see is micromanaging, but...

-You usually have a shitton of Money, so it doesn't matter anyway. The only game where i really had to think about durability was Radiant Dawn (especially Part 3), but otherwise i had enough money to fill the whole convoy

-Hoarding. Hoarding and hoarding. Leave all strong weapons to the end and keep using Iron/Steel weapons

-Outside of Weight/AS loss, there is no use in not using the weapon that will bring you the kill. Except if it's a weapon you want to hoard and you think it's not late enough yet to use.

Meanwhile in Fates (Conquest, due to limited income), if you ignore broken forging:

-You can't buy every weapon because they get very expensive quickly, not to mention it's stock limited before shop lvl3/late game. (I am midgame in my current Lunatic run, ~17k Gold, weapon cost 2k-8k. I have to decide if investing in a weapon is worth it or not)

-''Use Silver Weapon and kill, but lose stats, or Steel but no kill?'' ''More speed but less def? but i might get killed in EP then hmmm'' Or similiar choices as these affect units directly in battle (before i started forging ofc).

-encourages the use of different weapon without hoarding.

 

Tbh, i really think they should continue balancing what Fates brought us (nerfing shurikens/Knifes, no forging Irons/Steels so Silvers actually matter, Stat loss not so big, etc), instead of just bringing a mechanic that never really mattered outside of few games.

The large amounts of money depends on the game and your playstyle. In early games you are given a set amount of money at the beginning of the campaign and only gain more by selling items (rare items from chests), or story elements. So you had to manage you money. Buy a few iron swords now incase they break, or save and buy killing weapons later. 

You hoard weapons because: A - They are legendary/rare weapons and you don't want to break them. B - Save the good expensive weapons for when you really need them. Are you going to use that armorslayer that cost 1260 gold to kill a few soldiers or save it for the General bosses. Fates took that all away.
In FE7, Eliwood starts with a Rapier. effective damage against cavaliers and Armored units, but it is very expensive to buy a new one, and you can't for a long time, so do you use it against the early game cavs and knights for easy kills, or save it for when you really need it.

I don't see how using the right weapon for a job is a negative against weapon durability. If I can kill and enemy with one hit of my silver Sword vs four hits of Iron sword, the silver sword wins. One durability out of 20 beats 4 out of 46. With Wt and Con, using the right weapon makes a huge difference. Weaker weapons and double attack; or stronger weapon but one hit.

Conquest is designed that way. It tries to bring the challenge of older games into the mechanics and features of Fates. Money in Conquest is limited, so managing weapons is crucial. In Birthright/ Revelation you can grind for money, so you can make high forged Iron Swords for better damage and no penalty. 

Many people don't like the stat reductions and debuffs, so using the different weapons even though they can without losing them is still bad. 

 

If they can redo Fates' debuff system to make it more reasonable and they don't have a broken Forge system, then it might be ok. Otherwise weapon durability beats the infinite weapon + debuffs from Fates. (imo)

[Shadow Mir]

11 minutes ago, ElectiveToast said:

But that’s my point. The characters of the newer games are all one-dimensional except the ones in Echoes. I hope they don’t do a Fates and just fart out characters. 

The older FE games aren't exactly innocent of having one-note characters... Tellius, for example, has Mia, Kieran and Makalov.

[Shrimpica]

15 minutes ago, Lord_Grima said:

The large amounts of money depends on the game and your playstyle. In early games you are given a set amount of money at the beginning of the campaign and only gain more by selling items (rare items from chests), or story elements. So you had to manage you money. Buy a few iron swords now incase they break, or save and buy killing weapons later. 

I wonder how old we are talking about here because even in FE4 you get enough money to use Forseti indefinetly. In Fe6 you get enough money to get shoes for everyone from that one shop. I never really felt pressured with money in the game (except RD).

(Altough i heard FE5 is different in that regard. Still waiting for Tl)

15 minutes ago, Lord_Grima said:

You hoard weapons because: A - They are legendary/rare weapons and you don't want to break them. B - Save the good expensive weapons for when you really need them. Are you going to use that armorslayer that cost 1260 gold to kill a few soldiers or save it for the General bosses. Fates took that all away.

Even in Fates, i wouldn't use Armorslayers against Soldiers due nerfed mt. If you meant non boss generals/Knights in other games, you usually had enough durability to use it all game or enough money to buy new ones. The only thing Fates took away was hoarding, which is imo a good thing.

15 minutes ago, Lord_Grima said:

If I can kill and enemy with one hit of my silver Sword vs four hits of Iron sword, the silver sword wins. One durability out of 20 beats 4 out of 46.

Except i, and probaly 90% of the players, will hoard the silver Sword for later, except if it's a really critical situation. Since Irons you can get everywhere anyway.

15 minutes ago, Lord_Grima said:

Money in Conquest is limited, so managing weapons is crucial. In Birthright/ Revelation you can grind for money, so you can make high forged Iron Swords for better damage and no penalty. 

which is why i was talking only about Conquest xD

15 minutes ago, Lord_Grima said:

If they can redo Fates' debuff system to make it more reasonable and they don't have a broken Forge system, then it might be ok

I wish more people would be open to that idea, but all i see is just ''Bring Durability back'' when i think they should continue experimenting, and thus evolving the game.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Shrimperor

[Shadow Mir]

17 minutes ago, Lord_Grima said:

I don't see how using the right weapon for a job is a negative against weapon durability. If I can kill and enemy with one hit of my silver Sword vs four hits of Iron sword, the silver sword wins. One durability out of 20 beats 4 out of 46. With Wt and Con, using the right weapon makes a huge difference. Weaker weapons and double attack; or stronger weapon but one hit.

Like was said earlier, most people would refuse to use the silver sword for fear that they might need it later (as opposed to iron, which is readily available). So this is a poor example.

23 minutes ago, Lord_Grima said:

Conquest is designed that way. It tries to bring the challenge of older games into the mechanics and features of Fates. Money in Conquest is limited, so managing weapons is crucial. In Birthright/ Revelation you can grind for money, so you can make high forged Iron Swords for better damage and no penalty. 

The issue here is that spawning enemies costs money, and more often than not, you don't get enough money to recoup the losses... also, Fates's forge system is tedious, gimmicky, and even unusable - there's much better things for me to do with my money than crap it away on a forge.

[Altrosa]

-Child units

-Fates crazy weapon triangle and hard debuffs. You can literally ignore this on easier difficulties, but it quickly becomes a nightmare on harder modes (Heroes' triangle is good)

-Weapon durability. I'd actually prefer Echoes method where you have a weapon no matter what, but have the option to equip something stronger.

-Pheonix Mode (keep casual, though)

-Skinship

-Useless "My Castle" items or buildings if the mechanic returns. No hot springs unless bathing gives buffs. 

-Extremely fanservicey designs. Everyone notes Camilla, but Fates had a few classes with pointlessly revealing costumes, like the Dark Mages. Also, Nowi.

-Fatigue

-Shrines

-An unrequited love character. The Catria/Cordelia/Faye types. I really don't know anyone who likes this kind of character.

-A stalker that's supposed to be a good guy, or any yandere styled hero (Tharya, Camilla, Peri)

-Gender-locked jobs

-3 tier promotions.

-If the avatar returns, don't make them the lord with the Fachion-expy. Let us make them anything we want since it's supposed to be our character.

-The map designs employed by SoV. 

-Dead characters coming back (looking at you Awakening)

-Cherry-picking gay/bi characters. How many gay/bi/etc players were utterly dissapointed when the only two bi options in Fates were the sadist who spoke in innuendos and the yandere stalker? All of them. Just make everyone bi and drop child units.

-Short, in-battle support convos. Supports are for character development, so use them!

-Undertones of incest, or just straight up incest. 

 

 

That's all I got. I expect half of these will be in the next game.

[omegaxis1]

5 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

-Extremely fanservicey designs. Everyone notes Camilla, but Fates had a few classes with pointlessly revealing costumes, like the Dark Mages. Also, Nowi.

Actually, there's a very disturbing reason for why Nowi might dress that way which I theorize. So for Nowi, there is a reason. 

Odin and Nyx? Not a chance. 

6 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

-An unrequited love character. The Catria/Cordelia/Faye types. I really don't know anyone who likes this kind of character.

I am pretty sure that Catria and Cordelia are very popular, especially the latter. Faye is the only one that is hated.

6 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

-A stalker that's supposed to be a good guy, or any yandere styled hero (Tharya, Camilla, Peri)

Peri isn't a stalker. Are you confusing Peri with Faye?

7 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

-Dead characters coming back (looking at you Awakening)

You mean the Paralogues? Personally, I feel their survival may in fact be related to the breaking of taboo. You mess with time, and things go wonky. People that should be dead end up not being dead. 

8 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

-Cherry-picking gay/bi characters. How many gay/bi/etc players were utterly dissapointed when the only two bi options in Fates were the sadist who spoke in innuendos and the yandere stalker? All of them. Just make everyone bi and drop child units.

Hey, I think Leon was handled VERY well in Echoes. 

8 minutes ago, Altrosa said:

-Undertones of incest, or just straight up incest. 

Clearly you won't want Genealogy of the Holy War remake. And for the record, in Japan, marriage between cousins is in fact legal.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I think a lot of what I'd rather not see has already been mentioned multiple times in this thread now that I've had a quick glance. Granted I wouldn't be jumping down other peoples' throats like you guys are... So here are some small things that come to mind

Voice snippets. I presume FE Switch will have full voice acting, at least for major story sequences. Assuming the dev team decides their script is too large for their voice acting budget, they'll probably want to make heavy use of voice snippets like in Awakening and Fates that can be copied and pasted to fit the situation. But I don't want that. I'd rather just read the line of dialogue on my own without the out-of-context "You see..." or "Um, well..." or "Whaaaat!?"

2D sprite maps. I think we've had our fill of sprites. FE Switch will presumably be a beautiful, HD game with good looking character models that fit battle scenes as well as they fit the chapter's landscape. Have those represent our characters on the map. If Tellius could do it, this game can too. 

Support free-for-all. I don't like that every character can support every other character. The quality of these conversations take a considerable hit as characters fall back on their tropes to deliver an unconvincing romance. And it's quite a bit of content your writers need to provide that the majority of players will not see in their 1 or 2 playthroughs. Wasteful.

Paralogues that only serve to recruit a character. You can sell me again on the concept of child units, but it's annoying that this is what gaiden chapters have exclusively become. It also doesn't help that these side quests don't seem like they take place in the same setting as the main campaign. If the antagonists are a bandit crew, there will be as many of 50 bandits, all working together. That is a larger force than the majority of story chapters in which you fight whole armies. These bandits shouldn't be harassing Outrealm brats, they should be conquering small countries. Side quests should serve to expand on the world and lore. You can put recruitable characters in most or even all of them, but it shouldn't be maps entirely about said units.

[Pegasus Knight]

19 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Actually, there's a very disturbing reason for why Nowi might dress that way which I theorize. So for Nowi, there is a reason. 

Odin and Nyx? Not a chance. 

I am pretty sure that Catria and Cordelia are very popular, especially the latter. Faye is the only one that is hated.

Peri isn't a stalker. Are you confusing Peri with Faye?

You mean the Paralogues? Personally, I feel their survival may in fact be related to the breaking of taboo. You mess with time, and things go wonky. People that should be dead end up not being dead. 

Hey, I think Leon was handled VERY well in Echoes. 

Clearly you won't want Genealogy of the Holy War remake. And for the record, in Japan, marriage between cousins is in fact legal.

He was a gay faye but a lil more fan.. and valbar out of all people? ew

Edited December 22, 2017 by Pegasus Knight

[Slumber]

51 minutes ago, Pegasus Knight said:

He was a gay faye but a lil more fan.. and valbar out of all people? ew

The difference between Faye and Leon was that Leon knew he didn't have a chance with Valbar, and wasn't a complete asshole to the people around him, disillusioned into thinking Valbar was the ONLY person who mattered. The closest he really got was him telling Kamui why he wasn't into him when Kamui thought Leon might be hitting on him. 

Faye's sole support chain besides Alm is two conversations of her telling Silque to fuck off, then one of her saying "Sorry or whatever".

Edited December 23, 2017 by Slumber

[Von Ithipathachai]

3 minutes ago, Slumber said:

The difference between Faye and Leon was that Leon knew he didn't have a chance with Valbar, and wasn't a complete asshole to the people around him, disillusioned into thinking Valbar was the ONLY person who mattered. The closest he really got was him telling Kamui why he wasn't into him when Kamui thought Leon might be hitting on him. 

Faye's sole support chain besides Alm is two conversations of her telling Genny to fuck off, then one of her saying "Sorry or whatever".

Silque, you mean.  If I recall correctly, Genny only has Supports with Sonya, for some reason.

But yeah.  Dismissing Leon as a "gay Faye" feels like a major insult to his character.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Von Ithipathachai

[Slumber]

38 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Silque, you mean.  If I recall correctly, Genny only has Supports with Sonya, for some reason.

But yeah.  Dismissing Leon as a "gay Faye" feels like a major insult to his character.

You're correct. Silque is Alm's route, Genny is Celica's. Ma bad. 

1 hour ago, Altrosa said:

Just make everyone bi and drop child units.

Also, not sure this is the best option. At least I don't see it as being much better than "Nobody is gay".

As much as I think sexuality is a spectrum, people do tend to swing one way nearly 100% of the time. Even self-proclaimed bi-sexuals tend to prefer one sex over the other, and making everyone equally bi-sexual can have some bad implications with it. The idea of everyone being bi could run the risk of it feeling like "sexuality is a choice", which obviously isn't going to sit well if the idea of making everyone bi is to ensure gay and bi people get represented properly. 

Even the more sexually progressive western developers have a problem with this. BioWare caught flak for Dragon Age 2 for how easily the main character just latches onto any romantic moves from NPCs regardless of sex, and Mass Effect 3 suddenly introduced gay romance options for MaleShep a character who previously had none(Though of course this was probably to address the equally problematic fact that FemShep had gay romances going all the way back ME1).  

I think the better option is to make a small handful of characters are strictly gay(Or bi) for both genders, and simply write them as if they were any of the straight ones. No Niles, no Rajhat, NO Soliel scenarios. Just good, non-hetero characters. 

Edited December 23, 2017 by Slumber

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

NO Soliel scenarios

Ugh. Worst one ever. I swear, there is no way she could have made any swoon with her near sexual harassment form of flirting.

[Zasplach]

I find these kind of topics because when you ask, what do you want, you come with a grab bag of items, but what you don't want clarifies what you like about something and why future installments shouldn't have certain aspects.  

I think mostly what I don't want from future installments is this attempt to cull together all the aspects of older games into a new game.  I think what I respect most about Fire Emblem as a series and IS as a developer is that they take risks, they try new things, and they are willing to put popular features on the backburner to try new features.  Not every game that is made needs to have every feature that I find enjoyable because sometimes they have to think outside the box.  Not considering SOV because it was a pretty faithful remake of an old game, the last two games have felt like a grab bag of 'these are things people like about Fire Emblem, let's put them all into a game'.  I understand that that was the point of Awakening, they thought this might be the last Fire Emblem game ever so they made it a homage to every game, so they threw in all the features they felt summarized the other games: child units, skills, world map, skirmishes, gaidens, etc etc, but it also had new features, like casual mode and etc.  I feel like the lesson IS learned is that people want the games to be a throwback to the old games (what I will call the 'star wars' effect) and so they turned Fates into a 3 part game, one for people who liked the old games, one for people who liked the new games and one for in-between; that seems like an untenable model.

So basically, I don't want them to keeping try what's worked, at least not ad nauseam, give me a new 'arc' for FE; something that isn't Archancea, Judgral, Elibe, Magvel, Tellius, or the 3ds era.

[Altrosa]

I do know the excuse for Nowi's look. Doesn't make it okay.  It's just bad art direction.

I hear more dissent for the "unrequited love" types than any sort of favoritism. Maybe men like that? I dunno.

In regards to the "everyone is bi now," that's a fair argument. It's just that IS caught flak themselves by their choices of who to make the sole options for gay/bi players. It felt a bit insulting that the only girl who'd date me is a socially stunted, obsessed stalker archetype. Leon drives me crazy as a character, but he'd annoy me the same if he were a straight girl. 

But, the fact it could read "sexuality is a choice" is really gross and I can totally get why some would want the game to avoid that implication! But, the whole system is part of the player fantasy fulfillment, so it'd need a better balance.

If S-ranking is out, however, then having a few non-heterosexual characters would be the better scenario since player fantasy fulfillment isn't a part of it.

Peri is unquestionably a terrible person and makes Xander look like a fool for having her around, and girl needs to be institutionalized. 

So does Camilla. And Tharja. The common detail of the three is more that they all put very little value on the lives of anyone but their beloveds (to varying degrees), layered in savage mental issues that are played for laughs. I hate this kind of character. It's freaking creepy.

If this personality wouldn't work on a male character, then it shouldn't be on a female. But all are super fanservicey and the game plays it up like we'd want this type of person on our side verses, like, jail.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Altrosa

[bethany81707]

Lyn/Florina was probably not written romantically, but enough people interpreted is as such that it's competing for Lyn's most popular ship.

They just need to embrace that. Explicit S-Ranks probably doesn't help that- if a platonic pair can reach as high as a romantic one, the line between them is down to player preference.