What are the Top 3 Things you want in the next FE Game and why?

[Metal Flash]

41 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Another? Has Fire Emblem ever even properly done a civil war? Only ones I can think of is the Silesian Civil War in Genealogy of the Holy War and the Zofian Civil war in Gaiden, both of which are minor plot points overall. Oh and I guess part 2 of Radiant Dawn is pretty straight, even if the open civil war is all of two chapters. They've occasionally had elements of coups thrown in like in Binding Blade and Three Houses, but those were always, effectively, puppets of a larger power. Blazing Blade had rumblings of a Lycian Civil War that never happened (and even given the set up of the Lycian league it would have been less a civil war and more a break up). Radiant Dawn sort of had a Begnion civil war for about five minutes at the end of Radiant Dawn, but even calling that a civil war is a bit generous given there isn't a single battle foight on Begnion soil. It's something I'd like to see too, but it's not something I think Fire Emblem has seriously tried to tackle yet.

I was thinking Radiant Dawn parts one and two. Part one is the "leading the rebillion" type while part two is the "defending the throne" type. But I guess those two were just part of a larger narrative. In that cause, I would like seen them tackle a proper civil war. 

[Use the Falchion]

12 hours ago, joevar said:

with almost exact length in support and it always end with equally happy ending.

Not all of them are incredibly happy. Gaius and Maribelle's ending is explicitly bittersweet because Gaius goes back to his old ways and Maribelle fears catching him. There are a few others where the couples aren't as happy, or things are a little tense. 

 

 

12 hours ago, joevar said:

if any character can compromise any character in equal measure

Why do you think it's a compromise? What are they compromising to you? I'm not saying you're wrong, because all relationships need compromise, respect, honesty, and love to even begin to have a chance at surviving. It sounds like you're saying they're compromising their character though, which I don't think is the case at all. For any FE game, unless you're going the "childhood friends romance" path (which is fine!), the romances are usually two people who would never normally be together put in situations where they're together and fall in love. Eliwood would never usually be around Ninian or Lyn, Hector around Florian/Farina or Lyn. Ike wouldn't usually be around Elincia or Lethe, if not for the war and his father's death. Virion wouldn't be around Tharja if it wasn't for the war, or Kaze around Camilla. The list for any of these matches goes on, but none of them are compromising anything. 

But back to Awakening and Three Houses, none of the characters in their paired endings compromised anything outside of what their characters and supports talked about. Felix doesn't stop training or using his sword in most of his endings, and in the few he does it's because of either peace or a callback to his supports with his wife. Shamir invites most of her supports to go see the world, and in several of their endings they do. Tharja doesn't give up on Dark Magic just because she has a husband, Libra doesn't give up on helping others just because he has a wife. But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. 

 

12 hours ago, joevar said:

then polygamy should be possible because they hypothetically could love each of them equally and unconditionally/ accordingly / adapting to their respective nature. i mean, even people who are allowed to have polygamy didnt do it just because they can.

I'd actually like to see polyamorous relationships in FE, if only because I can have OT3's, but if you think that this would be the way to do it, you are sorely mistaken. I've seen and heard about how poly relationships fail in real life (my best friend tried a couple of times for years, although the fault wasn't with the lifestyle but with the people involved). But that doesn't mean people automatically shift to what the other needs, because that's not how relationships work and that's not how Fire Emblem has ever illustrated a healthy relationship. The only two that I can remember compromising who they were for the other person off the top of my head were Tharja in her B-Support with Robin and Faye in one of her supports with Alm. Both men (or both the man and the woman in F!Robin's case) are suitably creeped out by what their admirer has done for them, and it doesn't enamor them to said admirer at all. In a non-romantic support, Seteth and Felix have a conversation touching on this, and Seteth warns Felix that he doesn't have to change his ideals, but he needs to respect those of others in order to grow as a person and keep his friends. 

 

12 hours ago, joevar said:

hence why i said it feels like what-ifs because a character can change in so many direction (of changes) with equal success or just plain 100% success rate across all options.

That feels less like an Awakening problem and more like a shipping and characterization problem. (Which I still heavily disagree with.) Do you have the same problem with pairing couples up in Genealogy for either generation? When a Genealogy remake is released, how will you feel about the amount of supports each generation will most likely have? And don't say they won't, because both FE 2 & FE 3 had supports in their remakes, and Awakening & Fates provided a path for having supports before pairing up units to for a second generation. Because I have a feeling that Genealogy is going to be more like those games in terms of "everyone can be paired with everyone" than some fans may give it credit for. 

 

12 hours ago, joevar said:

. if theres one FE thats done a good job , then its easy to say "just make it like FE: X" which is not the case. but okay fine, a game need to be ambitious.

I'm certainly not asking for that, and I don't think anyone here is asking for that. ...actually, I take that back. The amount of people who worship at the altar of RD would most certainly want another game like that. 

 

12 hours ago, joevar said:

even more so because making multiple routes to be equally unique means the amount of work put into it also become exponentially higher, unless they recycle content again which make the point moot.

You're not wrong, I just I think when done well, the results will reward that work. Recycling content isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, if properly applied. I don't think recycling a map is inherently bad, so long as the map is different each time. Revelations and Conquest use the same boat map IIRC, but it's a different objective and different layout depending on which game you choose. One is clearly favored over the other, yes, but the point is that they repurposed the same map for a different mission, and in that case it was fine. Of course, there's going too far, like Three Houses admittedly does by using the same set of maps for every non-major mission, but even they can justify it at times. The Hapi/Balthus paralogue and the invasion of Enbarr can use the same map because they're explicitly in the same location - Enbarr. If someone says "I need to go to XYZ for a specific thing" and a later storyline also happens at XYZ location, why shouldn't they reuse the asset? Three House's problem is making everything centered around those places, not that they reused them. 

And on the point of recycling content in terms of Garrag Mach, I only partially agree. Yes, it can be a slog at times, but at the same time, we get to see different things on each replay. If you choose BE, you can see more of Edelgard laying out her plans in advance. If you choose the Blue Lions, you can see Dimitri slowly becoming unhinged, and you hear about his situation far earlier than in other routes. If you choose the Golden Deer, then who Claude really is and what his goal is becomes more in focus. These are things you don't get until after the fact in other routes, and they make playing them all the more special. 

 

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

I would say I'm less pessimistic a put a game with a route split and more just inundated.

That's fine to me. I don't think route splits are necessary in FE games, but I don't think they're bad or have been done catastrophically without an upside or at least something respectable that can be taken forward either. Every FE game has given me an "aha" moment about the previous game that makes me respect both games more, be it gameplay or narrative. Route splits were no different IMO.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Metal Flash said:

I was thinking Radiant Dawn parts one and two. Part one is the "leading the rebillion" type while part two is the "defending the throne" type. But I guess those two were just part of a larger narrative. In that cause, I would like seen them tackle a proper civil war. 

I wouldn't really call Part 1 a civil war as such as Begnion is a foreign power, do you do get some shades of over lap with the likes of Fiona fighting on behalf of the Begnions.Thracia also plays the rebellion card pretty heavily with its conflict.

[Metal Flash]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

I wouldn't really call Part 1 a civil war as such as Begnion is a foreign power, do you do get some shades of over lap with the likes of Fiona fighting on behalf of the Begnions.Thracia also plays the rebellion card pretty heavily with its conflict.

Fair point.