May I ask why some Fire Emblem fans act like Awakening and Fates were the worst thing to happen to the series?

[Tryhard]

4 minutes ago, Rose482 said:

I will just say it, I feel like most of the negativity on this fandom comes from people who prefer the old games, and while I also consider myself to be someone that likes the old games more, I still can say that I like FE13/FE14 more than some of the old games.

And also why do people act like FE15 isn't a thing? Like so what if it was a remake? They still could have added fanservice and all of that if they wanted too, so I really don't think it's fair for people to already be complaining about FE16, and if anything, it's just annoying? 

For what it's worth, that's not what I was personally saying. I don't give a shit about the fanservice. My problems with Awakening and Fates come from other parts of the games, and the next game could end up being much better in my view.

But I think it's not that controversial to say it's more likely that Three Houses will follow more in the Awakening and Fates style. Not to say that I don't appreciate Echoes - I very much did.

[BrightBow]

3 minutes ago, Manstein said:

Do you not think Geneology of The Holy War has a good story and that it would have been presented better had the devopers had better hardware to work on?

I just don't think the quality really matters in this context. What I do think that matters is how when IS wanted to do a marriage mechanic back then, they used the opportunity to make an epic generational saga stretching across several decades. In Awakening they just kinda dumped the kids on the map the moment you get that S-Rank.

[Jedi]

It comes down to a simple thing, the way the series decided to stride forward wasn't to a decent chunk of the old guards taste. This kind of divide does happen in a lot of fandoms not just FE. 

As one of the old guard I do like aspects of Awakening and Fates, but the whole divide its caused more has made me apathetic to the series as a whole seeing both the old and new constantly fight with each other is tiring. 

Note I don't think any FE game is fully bad, I just don't like some as much as others, but with how much the series has changed, even between the Kaga and GBA era, it's easy to see where divides would happen, although I think some are a little silly to think the waifu wars started with Awakening, people did the same "I want the tactician in Blazing Sword to be me so I can theoritically imagine Lyn looking at me like that" erc and Heroes has been showing that side as much as the newer Awakening and Fates stuff, so I feel some folks are rather hypocritical in that regard. 

However I will also stress, both sides are at fault here, the infighting isn't just the onesided notion that the newer games lack stuff the old ones have, but the newer side is often just as combative that nothing before Awakening or Fates must have been good because it wasn't popular.

Note i'm not saying this to any one person in particular, it's the fandom itself that has the combined shades of this and when it mashes together it often reminds me of the Sonic fandom back when Sonic Adventure was first revealed and the fandom got split on his eyecolor, and then the ongoing war of classic/adventure era/modern fans that continues to this day. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Jedi

[Ottservia]

14 minutes ago, LJwalhout said:

Tiki also has a huge cleavage which very clearly shows her breasts and has clothing that show her legs up until her hips. The whole thing with Aversa & the beach dlc is that these are decisions that the creators where willing to make. They designed a character in such a way to be appealing. Whether it serves a purpose doesn't matter to me. There could just as well be a male character who manipulates people, but they didn't because people wouldn't like that as much (just look at CYL). The beach dlc doesn't add anything of substance. I'm pretty certain that people didn't dress like that when they went to beaches in that time period (if they even went to the beach). If IS really wanted character development they should put them in situations that are things that characters would do in-universe.

The thing is with fanservice is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It often is a calculated move from the developers to have mass appeal. Previous games had it but not to this extent and it was only limited to characters who had reasons for being that way. Nowadays we have characters that feel like they aren't allowed to be themselves because of the intention of the developer (Nyx and Kagero)  and characters that are fanservice (Camilla and Nowi). Also I often dislike fanservice (yes, even in older games like fe4) so when every character has fanservice aspects I notice and get annoyed

People can like the 3ds games because they have good parts and it's not like the previous games are flawless. But you also need to understand why people could dislike these games.

It's not like I don't understand why people dislike these games or the intent of fan service. People can like or dislike whatever they want for whatever reason. My issue is when people say something is objectively bad because they personally do not like it. Also in the case of fan service yeah I get the intent but even so if it's handled well and doesn't detract from the characters or story at all I just don't see the problem. There's nothing wrong with fanservice if it's done well. So what if the character looks a little sexy? Is she a worse character because of it? is the story worse because of it? if the answer is no then to me there's no issue. If yes, then we have a problem and I will criticize accordingly. Thing is when it comes to beach DLCs they don't make the game worse by existing. To say that it does is close minded. It may not add too much of substance in your eyes but it doesn't detract from anything either so again I fail to see why the DLC is a bad thing.

[Roland]

4 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Problem is, that "small part" is the fundamental Christians of our fanbase.

Um, beg you pardon, but what are you trying to imply with this comparison?

[eclipse]

Just now, Roland said:

Um, beg you pardon, but what are you trying to imply with this comparison?

They're small, loud, and giving everyone else a bad name.

[Erick]

3 minutes ago, eclipse said:

That's odd, Conquest is pretty damn good when it comes to tactics.  And one of the best units?  Camilla.  I can write a nice paragraph or two on why she's so darn good. . .if you're actually interested in doing something other than shitting on the 3DS side of things.

Nope.  Not by a long shot.  Awakening's early chapters were better IMO.

Conquest. That is a good point. It seems you might have an image of me which I do not show myself, but it is true that I did not say anything good about the newer games until now. I actually like Fates' gameplay a lot. I do dislike the rest of it, though.

Now about the story, could you please tell me why?

[Decerd]

6 minutes ago, Jedi said:

It comes down to a simple thing, the way the series decided to stride forward wasn't to a decent chunk of the old guards taste. This kind of divide does happen in a lot of fandoms not just FE. 

As one of the old guard I do like aspects of Awakening and Fates, but the whole divide its caused more has made me apathetic to the series as a whole seeing both the old and new constantly fight with each other is tiring. 

Note I don't think any FE game is fully bad, I just don't like some as much as others, but with how much the series has changed, even between the Kaga and GBA era, it's easy to see where divides would happen, although I think some are a little silly to think the waifu wars started with Awakening, people did the same "I want the tactician in Blazing Sword to be me so I can theoritically imagine Lyn looking at me like that" erc and Heroes has been showing that side as much as the newer Awakening and Fates stuff, so I feel some folks are rather hypocritical in that regard. 

However I will also stress, both sides are at fault here, the infighting isn't just the onesided notion that the newer games lack stuff the old ones have, but the newer side is often just as combative that nothing before Awakening or Fates must have been good because it wasn't popular.

Note i'm not saying this to any one person in particular, it's the fandom itself that has the combined shades of this and when it mashes together it often reminds me of the Sonic fandom back when Sonic Adventure was first revealed and the fandom got split on his eyecolor, and then the ongoing war of classic/adventure era/modern fans that continues to this day. 

Huh, you know that a fitting comparison when you think about it.

[BrightBow]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Are you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY certain you're treating all the games equally, in terms of praise and criticism?

Honestly, yeah kinda.

I mean, I have been complaining about the designs of female characters before Awakening was a thing. And I could most certainly write an essay about the flaws of each individual game. Heck, here is me going on about just one aspect of FE6 and 7: https://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?/topic/35337-genocide-and-pretty-lights/&page=1

 

[Roland]

8 minutes ago, eclipse said:

They're small, loud, and giving everyone else a bad name.

Just like every game journalist at Kotaku ever. Got it fam.

 

[Von Ithipathachai]

10 minutes ago, Jedi said:

It comes down to a simple thing, the way the series decided to stride forward wasn't to a decent chunk of the old guards taste. This kind of divide does happen in a lot of fandoms not just FE.

I myself see lots of parallels to the Fire Emblem fandom and Genesis fans, with the band's Peter Gabriel-era in place of Kaga's games and its Phil Collins-era in place of everything else, with Awakening and Fates being roughly equivalent to Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance, respectively.

[smgrinus]

I thought Awakening was perfectly fine. I didn't care for some of the systems but overall it was enjoyable. I especially enjoyed the pair ups and relationships. Unsure what the heck happened to Fates but there wasn't any part of it that I found enjoyable. Echoes was much better although I didn't really dislike the lack of weapon triangles.

[Rose482]

15 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

For what it's worth, that's not what I was personally saying. I don't give a shit about the fanservice. My problems with Awakening and Fates come from other parts of the games, and the next game could end up being much better in my view.

But I think it's not that controversial to say it's more likely that Three Houses will follow more in the Awakening and Fates style. Not to say that I don't appreciate Echoes - I very much did.

While I'm sure FE16 will follow Fates and Awakening in some ways, I also can see it following FE15 in others, which sorta will be the best of two worlds at this point, I guess I just don't like that some people are ignoring it in this debate just becasue it was a remake? A remake of a very old game at that, which should have given them a lot of ways to make it more like FE13/FE14, which they didn't do.

[Attila]

Let me go ahead and say my problems with both of them.

In Awakening, the story seems rushed. While I'm still blind to the 3DS era, I can't give criticism on gameplay, I will say that the gameplay does seem to have a lot of the same issues Sacred Stones Has: it's too easy to grind and have a capped team way earlier than intended, and this tones the difficulty down A LOT. Take a look at Blazing Sword (FE7) compared to Sacred Stones in difficulty. unless you Arena abuse through everything, FE7 is harder than FE8. This is also true for the increased stat totals for Awakening and Fates. Every unit is viable, and while this certainly isn't a problem (Pick your team as YOU want to play), it also knocks difficulty down a bit. A lot of the criticism in Awakening is due to the Avatar character, though. The game revolves around them being a main character, as opposed to them being important. This can be done fairly, but the Avatar feels too important to older players, who enjoy watching the story, as opposed to heading it.

In Fates, the story is horrible. It revolves around how important Corrin is, and every character depends on the idea that Corrin has to be flawless in every aspect. While they try to give some characterization, it's mostly a failed attempt (A good example being Peri and Xander's supports).

The final piece that I have to say is the Casual/Classic Debate; the idea of Casual Mode teaches players to play more recklessly, and it turns a lot of people away from the older Fire Emblem Games. And while newer players may complain about Elitists bitching about deaths and restarting anyways, they learn to strategize better. In a lot of older Fire Emblem games, this trial and error method felt better to the player than a simple "Oh, Raven died. I'll get him next chapter." The idea of taking away a punishment that teaches the players to play smarter, especially to the players who learned and adapted, seems unfair to new players.

In conclusion, both games aren't bad, but they are lackluster for Fire Emblem games, and that's why they get a lot of hate from "elitists." Some dislike the new mechanics, but overall, many of the ideas that made the games more popular are more punishing to newer players, and frustrating for older players.

[Slumber]

38 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I don't understand why it would be a bait and switch. We've seen that there is very likely an avatar already, with a prominent role. What do you think is going to happen?

This is the "new" way and games like Echoes are an exception and not the rule. That's just the way it is (for now).

I mean a bait and switch for the tone/style of the game.

Go and watch the reveal trailer for Fates. The biggest cause for concern in that trailer is Felicia, and that's not really something you'd put together until after the fact. I got excited for Fates because of that trailer, and I even overlooked the obvious warning signs of subsequent trailers.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Slumber

[Roland]

Can we all just agree that Meg is a shit tier unit in Radiant Dawn?

[Nym]

I have to say, newer games brought good elements and bad elements with them.

I mean... I did try once to watch a FE11 and FE12 playthough and I got so bored because there's almost no characters interaction because most units are bland and a lack of good support doesn't help. At least Awakening and Fates fixed this problem even if some units are anime troops.

But man... they really screwed up in some other areas. In particular the story.

The female armor designs for some characters is dumb, especially Camilla. You cannot defend that design, this is clearely fanservice. Kagero and Orochi too but AT LEAST they get some sort of a pass because their base class are fragile class (as such they don't wear armors). I'll defend Charlotte however, because I think this design makes sense for her character.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Nym

[Rose482]

1 minute ago, Roland said:

Can we all just agree that Meg is a shit tier unit in Radiant Dawn?

Leave my baby OUT of this conversation   

[Von Ithipathachai]

Just now, Rose482 said:

Leave my baby OUT of this conversation   

Meg didn't deserve to have IS do her dirty.

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Manstein said:

Conquest. That is a good point. It seems you might have an image of me which I do not show myself, but it is true that I did not say anything good about the newer games until now. I actually like Fates' gameplay a lot. I do dislike the rest of it, though.

Now about the story, could you please tell me why?

First part: This is what I replied to (bold mine):

1 hour ago, Manstein said:

Excuse me? Do you not agree this is what people like when you see the community? I do not think whether that is true or not is up to debate. There is a reason these things saved the franchise. Do you seriously think people look for a tactic game in Awakening or Fates?

See the issue?

Second part: The Loptyr sect has about as much nuance as a brick to the foot.  Couple that with the fact that one-third of the Original Heroes Three has to act in ways that completely and utterly defy logic in order for part 1 to work, and I don't particularly enjoy it.  The first arc of Awakening focused mostly on Gangrel, and how his country fell apart around him. . .because he was evil and not particularly nuanced about it (even if the Loptyr's sect mirror is the Grimleal. . .but notice how I said the early part of Awakening, not the later portions).

15 minutes ago, BrightBow said:

Honestly, yeah kinda.

I mean, I have been complaining about the designs of female characters before Awakening was a thing. And I could most certainly write an essay about the flaws of each individual game. Heck, here is me going on about just one aspect of FE6 and 7: https://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?/topic/35337-genocide-and-pretty-lights/&page=1

 

Exposed legs/skirts/boob armor has been around for a while.

Spoiler

Yep, even on one of my favorite characters.  Frustrating, really.

For all the crap I give the later mounted riders in FE about miniskirts, the worst offender by far is the Ilian pegasus riders.  They're from a canonically cold place, and they're dressed like. . .that.  I'll give Nohr one thing - pants aside, the outfits are surprisingly unisex.

7 minutes ago, Attila said:

Let me go ahead and say my problems with both of them.

In Awakening, the story seems rushed. While I'm still blind to the 3DS era, I can't give criticism on gameplay, I will say that the gameplay does seem to have a lot of the same issues Sacred Stones Has: it's too easy to grind and have a capped team way earlier than intended, and this tones the difficulty down A LOT. Take a look at Blazing Sword (FE7) compared to Sacred Stones in difficulty. unless you Arena abuse through everything, FE7 is harder than FE8. This is also true for the increased stat totals for Awakening and Fates. Every unit is viable, and while this certainly isn't a problem (Pick your team as YOU want to play), it also knocks difficulty down a bit. A lot of the criticism in Awakening is due to the Avatar character, though. The game revolves around them being a main character, as opposed to them being important. This can be done fairly, but the Avatar feels too important to older players, who enjoy watching the story, as opposed to heading it.

In Fates, the story is horrible. It revolves around how important Corrin is, and every character depends on the idea that Corrin has to be flawless in every aspect. While they try to give some characterization, it's mostly a failed attempt (A good example being Peri and Xander's supports).

The final piece that I have to say is the Casual/Classic Debate; the idea of Casual Mode teaches players to play more recklessly, and it turns a lot of people away from the older Fire Emblem Games. And while newer players may complain about Elitists bitching about deaths and restarting anyways, they learn to strategize better. In a lot of older Fire Emblem games, this trial and error method felt better to the player than a simple "Oh, Raven died. I'll get him next chapter." The idea of taking away a punishment that teaches the players to play smarter, especially to the players who learned and adapted, seems unfair to new players.

In conclusion, both games aren't bad, but they are lackluster for Fire Emblem games, and that's why they get a lot of hate from "elitists." Some dislike the new mechanics, but overall, many of the ideas that made the games more popular are more punishing to newer players, and frustrating for older players.

In my conclusion, you should play New Mystery of the Emblem, for that's where everything you dislike started.

[Sunwoo]

Oh jeez, this argument again.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but here's my reason as to why I wasn't super big on Awakening and really didn't like Fates. Somewhere along the way, I feel that the "spirit" of FE got lost with those two games, which other games still maintained to an extent.

Previous FE games, regardless of their flaws, did a better job of properly demonstrating the horrors and difficulties and responsibilities of war. Elinicia was willing to let her dear friend die to keep an unworthy man off the throne during a civil war. Characters like Ike and Micaiah do get praised, but it's rarely to the detriment of the story and the story's themes. The "faceless" soldiers and commoners still get a voice through various means.

The problem with Awakening and Fates is that the games tend to focus just on the people and events you can see, and never really seem to delve into the consequences that occur to people who are "not you or the people you know and love". Chrom is a man who loves the people around him, but clearly can't make the difficult decisions needed as a ruler. It would've been character growth had he gone from not being able to sacrifice Emmeryn to understanding that he needs to let Robin sacrifice themselves to end Grima for good. Instead, he begins and ends as the same man who cannot let go of his loved ones for the good of the world. He is the exalt. This is a part of his duty. Lucina, to a lesser extent, comes off as a hypocrite in That One Cutscene if the avatar is her husband or mother -- someone who can't look past her own happiness and loved ones even if it comes to saving the world.

Fates has ... a bunch of issues. Birthright's main problem is that it's boring. It's like Awakening in that you're on the "right side", but nothing's properly explored and it's a bit unsatisfying in that the game is obviously telling you who's bad and who's not. Conquest has a lot of issues. In Conquest, you're on the morally wrong side, but the game tries to repeatedly "soften" the blow by making it so that the avatar wants to "do what's right" and "save the Hoshidan people" ... all the while causing more damage than had you not tried to "save" the Hoshidans. Corrin fucks up a lot in Conquest, and the Hoshidans are justified to be mad at him. But apparently all is forgiven and Takumi even apologizes for being (justifiably, mind you) suspicious and unfriendly towards Corrin in the beginning. Revelation is basically Radiant Dawn, except undeserved, because at least Tellius was given more depth to its lore and characters in PoR.

Another issue that I see, which is tied to the above complaints, is that Awakening and Fates make a bigger deal about shoving "so-and-so is good, while so-and-so is bad" in your face. While there were obviously villains and heroes in previous FEs, you didn't get the feeling that the game was trying to shove in your face so much about how this specific character is good and what flaws, they have no flaws, they're just good and holy and you should love them (Emmeryn and Mikoto, I'm looking at you). Characters like Elincia, on the other hand, were allowed to see that they had flaws and grow from them rather than being mindlessly praised as "they're good for their country, how dare you look deeper". Iago and Hans from Fates are so cartoonishly villainous that it feels kind of dumb. They really have no depth other than making Corrin miserable.

tl;dr: My issue with Awakening and Fates is not so much fanservice or marriage system or kids in itself. It is a tonal shift in the games and how war and conflict are treated, which puts more focus on pandering to the player's feelings than in the "now" than giving complicated things actual thought.

[BrightBow]

33 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Exposed legs/skirts/boob armor has been around for a while.

  Reveal hidden contents

Yep, even on one of my favorite characters.  Frustrating, really.

For all the crap I give the later mounted riders in FE about miniskirts, the worst offender by far is the Ilian pegasus riders.  They're from a canonically cold place, and they're dressed like. . .that.  I'll give Nohr one thing - pants aside, the outfits are surprisingly unisex.

Ayra looks pretty well covered up to me here. If it's just be about wearing a chest piece, you can find that one on male designs of that era too.

The series had plenty of bare legs and miniskirts. I recall complaining about that. However, the fact that Fire Emblem could have all those designs without any panty shots sneaking in, just emphasizes the change of direction when Awakening put them everywhere, especially with designs that otherwise use heavy armor, because wearing a heavy, bulky top doesn't look awkward at all if all you wear below the belt is a thong. Even Echoes did that, though I have to give that game credit for at least not purposefully highlighting them. Also, they really more bloomers in that game.

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by BrightBow

[Von Ithipathachai]

3 minutes ago, BrightBow said:

And yet despite those designs, there were no panty shots in the series ever. So all this those is to emphasize the change of direction when Awakening put them everywhere, especially with designs that otherwise use heavy armor, because wearing a heavy, bulky top doesn't look awkward at all if all you wear below the belt is a thing.

Huh??  I thought it was Fates that did that, not Awakening.

[BrightBow]

5 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Huh??  I thought it was Fates that did that, not Awakening.

Great Knights had that. Generals had that. Not 100% sure on Knights and Paladins, but I remember Cavaliers were wearing bloomers or something along those lines.

Edited December 23, 2018 by BrightBow

[Von Ithipathachai]

4 minutes ago, BrightBow said:

Great Knights had that. Generals had that. Not 100% sure on Paladins, but Cavaliers were wearing bloomers or something along those lines.

...Crap.  Did Fates Great Knights and Generals cover them up from the front?  Because they did in Awakening.  Which is probably why I don't remember Awakening having them.