Jump to content
Jotari

I'm not a massive fan of Avatars, but I still really want one in a Genealogy of the Holy War remake

Recommended Posts

On 12/31/2020 at 4:28 AM, Gordin said:

An avatar would be cool but only if they get murdered in Belhalla. I don't want the avatar to survive that ruins the entire massacre. I don't give a crap about new players being disthrought. MURDER THE AVATAR IN BELHALLA.

Didn't FE5 imply some of the characters from FE4 generation 1 got turned into stone and survived? I think an FE4 remake should address that for some of the gen 1 characters and maybe the avatar as well if they include one. 

Edited by FoxyGrandpa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Deirdre an Bhróin said:

Now #2. Sacred Stones does exactly this without an avatar. Players are given a route split with two completely different narratives that combine in the end, allowing players to experience the next route if they choose to play it. In a way, FE7 also does this. Fates also does this, but with an avatar. Three Houses also does this, but with an avatar. Seeing how all three of the games sold very well, why wouldn't this "not work well." I'm not going to assume your mindset towards this, so I'd like to know exactly why IS wouldn't take that approach then when they have done very similar formats before.

Those games were made from the ground up as they are. Especially notable for Fates and Three Houses, these games were designed from the beginning to have a central avatar character with route options, as opposed to inserting a new avatar character into an existing split story. The routes in these also don't happen simultaneously, so you're not playing any maps without your avatar available.

This is essentially the same for Sacred Stones; the story is technically split, but the player doesn't move between Eirika and Ephraim, you just stick to the one you chose. The split only lasts for like 5 chapters anyway, not the whole game like Gaiden/Echoes. The problem with Gaiden would be that choosing where your avatar goes and having them involved in the story means you need separate versions of the story for if an avatar is there or not. If the avatar follows Celica, the story has to involve an avatar on Celica's side but not on Alm's, and vice versa if the player goes with Alm. So you need Alm w/out avatar, Alm w/avatar, Celica w/out avatar, Celica w/avatar, and they must all be consistent with each other because this is all still one ultimate story path, not unique campaigns like Fates and Three Houses. SS just has Eirika's variation of a chunk of chapters and Ephraim's variation of a chunk of chapters, with the rest of the game being virtually the same and no major characters randomly existing or not existing.

15 minutes ago, Deirdre an Bhróin said:

Lastly, #3. Once again, IS never really cared for narrative if it was at the expense of an avatar character. We don't have an example of the "magical" split routes, but we surely have examples of narratives being compromised for the sake of an avatar character. FE12 is the biggest contender for this. Kris is a controversial addition on both western and JP sides of the fandom. Just as both Kamui and Byleth. IS knows where priorities were placed and where they were not, however it would be poor to not acknowledge fans from the whole spectrum have been critical of this.

All of the avatars have been poorly-received by some, but positive reception has always won out. The reception to Kris is probably the least reliable because of the low exposure of their game.

16 minutes ago, Deirdre an Bhróin said:

It's safe to assume we'll see avatar characters in future FE titles, but its definitely something to assume they'll be in every remake. For one, avatars was not something they dabbled in until FE12 (I don't consider Mark an Avatar, though he functions like them in the narrative: irrelevant), and we haven't seen it in a remake since. Among FE remakes, we've only gotten 4, and only 1 came after 12. With whatever information we currently have to gage the "beahvior" of IS, I can confidently say it's just not something they'd do.

There's been exactly two remakes since avatars started getting implemented and only one of them doesn't have one. To say we "haven't seen it in a remake since" is disingenuous, there's been literally one more chance since the first time and as I explained before, it's objectively one of the hardest to put an avatar into at all (the only one on a similar level is Radiant Dawn).

I'm not 100% confident a Genealogy remake will have a player avatar. I just think it's a strong possibility that a remake of the first game in the series to have marriage and child units will take advantage of the popular feature from popular titles Awakening and Fates by allowing the player to take part as well. From a business perspective, it honestly just feels like it would be a missed opportunity not to include it.

Share this post


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

Though it's minor, they have already made avatar marriage options that don't produce children in a game with a second generation: Rhajat and Niles when married by the same sex. I think they wouldn't mind the lack of an avatar child if it needed to be that way, especially when it allows for straight marriage.

Yeah, but I think there's a difference between one or two examples in the game, and literally two thirds of the cast (counting replacement units). A Genealogy Avatar would already be bucking the trend by not being able to S support everyone given canon pairings like Deirdre and Sigurd and Cuan and Ethlyn exist (uh...not as a foursome, that middle and is a greater and). Even Alois like platonic S supports wouldn't really be feasible for three of those four given the way the chapters of Genealogy play out.

11 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Count me in on the Severa train as well. All 7 of my votes are going to her this CYL. IS has made me wait long enough.

 I don't think Thracia implied that. Kaga's notes mentioned it was planned for Genealogy though, and Thracia had a plot point about someone being captured and turned to stone as a recycle of that idea, but I don't think they mention anyone from the barbecue getting stoned though.

3 hours ago, Deirdre an Bhróin said:

 

Now #2. Sacred Stones does exactly this without an avatar. Players are given a route split with two completely different narratives that combine in the end, allowing players to experience the next route if they choose to play it. In a way, FE7 also does this. Fates also does this, but with an avatar. Three Houses also does this, but with an avatar. Seeing how all three of the games sold very well, why wouldn't this "not work well." I'm not going to assume your mindset towards this, so I'd like to know exactly why IS wouldn't take that approach then when they have done very similar formats before.

 

 

 

For the record, I am of the opinion that this was a pretty terrible idea and that Sacred Stones would be a much better game if its route split was handled like Gaiden.

2 hours ago, Florete said:

 

There's been exactly two remakes since avatars started getting implemented and only one of them doesn't have one. To say we "haven't seen it in a remake since" is disingenuous, there's been literally one more chance since the first time and as I explained before, it's objectively one of the hardest to put an avatar into at all (the only one on a similar level is Radiant Dawn).

 

I'm not 100% confident a Genealogy remake will have a player avatar. I just think it's a strong possibility that a remake of the first game in the series to have marriage and child units will take advantage of the popular feature from popular titles Awakening and Fates by allowing the player to take part as well. From a business perspective, it honestly just feels like it would be a missed opportunity not to include it.

I'd say you're right with Gaiden and Radiant Dawn being one and two, but I would say Genealogy would be number three in the difficulty of implementing the avatar factor as, despite me making this thread because I do want it to happen, the Generation split is something they would need to deal with somehow with an avatar. Not on par with Gaiden and Radiant Dawn's parallel narratives (though not technically parallel in Radiant Dawn...replace Ilyana with the avatar?), but still a difficulty. If we do get a Genealogy remake next and there is no avatar in it, they could still implement avatars in the likes of Thracia and Binding Blade afterwards (though personally speaking, Thracia is such a Leif focused game, I wouldn't really want one there).

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

I'd say you're right with Gaiden and Radiant Dawn being one and two, but I would say Genealogy would be number three in the difficulty of implementing the avatar factor as, despite me making this thread because I do want it to happen, the Generation split is something they would need to deal with somehow with an avatar. Not on par with Gaiden and Radiant Dawn's parallel narratives (though not technically parallel in Radiant Dawn...replace Ilyana with the avatar?), but still a difficulty. If we do get a Genealogy remake next and there is no avatar in it, they could still implement avatars in the likes of Thracia and Binding Blade afterwards (though personally speaking, Thracia is such a Leif focused game, I wouldn't really want one there).

If you were to rank them, yeah, I guess Genealogy would be third, but I think it's closer in ease to the rest of the series than it is to Gaiden/RD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a brave one OP, this community hates avatars. Overall, I don't mind the concept of avatar, and a  recurring wishlist for Genealogy remake is that: an avatar.

 The problem is that, in my opinion, the avatars of IS are a black hole that often have no more depht than others of the cast, but they still manage to center everyone around them. If they are successful to make an avatar that is just an observant protagonist and doesn't steal the show of existing characters, this would alright. But there's great possibilities that Intsis would mess everything and decide to pander to power fantasy in which everyone loves avatar, because it sells. 

As for the fate of a possible avatar in Arvis massacre, there's three possibilities: they die; they get Lewyn treatment and are possessed by another of the 12 dragons; or they get Oifey/Edain treatment being another parental figure to the next generation. 

 I'd rather if they die so they are substituted by their only child, of the same gender.   I think players would be more impacted if the avatar die without any plot armor. 

Edited by Mylady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we're all wishcasting here but I feel it has to be said that any avatar will be poorly implemented in the plot. Look at Kris. We all hate Kris, right? The story of Genealogy isn't some untouchable gospel of greatness, but I'd still rather see what's there improved upon instead of an avatar added. A lot of the compromise positions I see here basically end up at "put Byleth in the game" and as a person who found Byleth to be a pretty negative influence of 3H's story in general I'd say that it's best that we have no avatar. Not a soft avatar, not a hard-self insert, but no avatar. If you don't like how Sigurd's written, I have good news: they'll probably write new dialogue if there's a remake.

Share this post


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

I know we're all wishcasting here but I feel it has to be said that any avatar will be poorly implemented in the plot. Look at Kris. We all hate Kris, right? The story of Genealogy isn't some untouchable gospel of greatness, but I'd still rather see what's there improved upon instead of an avatar added. A lot of the compromise positions I see here basically end up at "put Byleth in the game" and as a person who found Byleth to be a pretty negative influence of 3H's story in general I'd say that it's best that we have no avatar. Not a soft avatar, not a hard-self insert, but no avatar. If you don't like how Sigurd's written, I have good news: they'll probably write new dialogue if there's a remake.

Since actually playing Old Mystery of the Emblem, not a whole lot. That story is nothing but exposition, goodness knows it needed some extra life injected into it. Could something have been done better than Kris and the assassins? Probably, but he's still the best implementation of an Avatar we've had thus far imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 9:07 AM, highonbartresspeed said:

I know we're all wishcasting here but I feel it has to be said that any avatar will be poorly implemented in the plot. Look at Kris. We all hate Kris, right? The story of Genealogy isn't some untouchable gospel of greatness, but I'd still rather see what's there improved upon instead of an avatar added. A lot of the compromise positions I see here basically end up at "put Byleth in the game" and as a person who found Byleth to be a pretty negative influence of 3H's story in general I'd say that it's best that we have no avatar. Not a soft avatar, not a hard-self insert, but no avatar. If you don't like how Sigurd's written, I have good news: they'll probably write new dialogue if there's a remake.

He is the reason why I am interested in the FE series and started playing, just saying. I am not too focus on storytelling, that's why simple stories like Kris and Katarina, or time-skip Awakening are much more memorable to me compared to like FE10 or FE4/5.

In terms of gameplay though, I don't like how SoV reuse maps (It would be fine if they filled it up with more enemies but no, so many times it's just open space there which really annoys me) so if we ever get FE4 remake, I sure hope we can get Avatar that can turn into Cavalry unit to make the gameplay a bit better.

As to whether he should survived the bbq, I am on the fence about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell no, especially with the high chance of garbage like Kris 2.0 shoving themselves into a perfectly good plot. Not worth it.

Edited by Seazas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I think it COULD be implemented, but if it were added, do you really think it would be done well? We all know if an avatar is implemented it's gonna negatively impact the story. The story does not need to be changed, at least for first gen, as it is by far the best story in the franchise. Having an avatar already always neuters the stories of new games, so what do you think is gonna happen when they insert one into an already solid plot for an older game? It sounds like an absolute disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust it to be done well, so I'd rather not see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2020 at 8:32 PM, Jotari said:

So this is something I brought up in (I think?) the unpopular opinions thread recently. I wouldn't put myself in the no Avatars crowd, but I can't say I'm particularly enamored by the idea either (hell I have a hard time even thinking of these characters as avatars with their default appearance being used so much in ancillary titles and Byleth not even having customizable appearance). But for a Genealogy remake I'm outright hoping. One word ugenics.

I don't want an avatar that dominates the plot or steals Sigurd/Seliph's spotlight. But I would love if in the character creation you could choose to give them minor holy blood from any of the crusaders (minor, not major though). Just so I can breed combinations to give major Fala and Neir blood etc. The character could be a noble bastard of a cadet family to avoid stepping on any established family trees.

Not sure how the barbecue would go down. I'd probably prefer killing the avatar and moving on to a Morgan scenario for the second gen (either with a near identical appearance or the option to customize a second appearance for your child). Having them pull a Finn wouldnt be the worst thing in the world (though obvious more broken units available to the player would need to have a knock on effect on the gameplay).

Anyway that's something I want for gameplay fun. We talked a bit in the previous referenced thread but I thought a dedicated one might be warranted too (so everyone can tell me how wrong I am for wanting another avatar in a remake even though Kris wasn't all that bad). Putting this on general Fire Emblem over the Genealogy section as this isn't quite a NES and SNES topic but more of a hypothetical future game area.

Hi, currently I'm making my own version of FE4 and I have someone close to Robin in role, but not really customizable in appearance. Mine has minor darkness blood which is very useful  for any offensive build and his class is tactician (like in awakening). My "Sigurd" and "Ethlyn" are now twin brothers and they have sword and minor light blood while only my "Sigurd" has major sword. The three of them have forced wedding like in Awakening, but no maiden, but due to FE4's nature, they always have 3 children (1 of their fixed child and 2 children fixed to their wives).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, AlphaIsTimZ said:

Hi, currently I'm making my own version of FE4 and I have someone close to Robin in role, but not really customizable in appearance. Mine has minor darkness blood which is very useful  for any offensive build and his class is tactician (like in awakening). My "Sigurd" and "Ethlyn" are now twin brothers and they have sword and minor light blood while only my "Sigurd" has major sword. The three of them have forced wedding like in Awakening, but no maiden, but due to FE4's nature, they always have 3 children (1 of their fixed child and 2 children fixed to their wives).

Lopt blood is the one thing I absolutely wouldn't give an avatar, as even the very existence of lopt blood throws the entire story out of wack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Lopt blood is the one thing I absolutely wouldn't give an avatar, as even the very existence of lopt blood throws the entire story out of wack.

Apparently, he actually falls in love with Diadora, but due to the blood, he doesn't. It's actually his fellow nobleman who triggers the resurrection of the dark lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...