Would you still want FEW2 even after Three Hopes?

[Anomalocaris]

With Three Hopes upon us and proving to go in a radically different direction from the original Fire Emblem Warriors in many ways, does anybody here still want a proper, direct sequel to the original game?

If so:

• Assuming the gameplay structure is primarily built upon FEW1, what mechanics/features from Three Hopes would you like to see backported in?
• How should this hypothetical sequel handle Three Houses and its cast now that they've got their own dedicated Warriors game? Should Three Houses be skipped for now in favor of other games? Included but with less emphasis than the others? Go all-in on them yet again?

[Armchair General]

I thought that this was FEW 2?

[Fabulously Olivier]

Yes. A million times YES! We are owed Ike, Roy, Hector, Ephraim, and all the others and I will not be content until they make good. Fire Emblem Warriors: Ultimate. Everyone is here! (I'd also gladly settle for Radiant Dawn Warriors, but I digress).

 

Now, define proper direct sequel. FEW1 had a trash story with dreadful original characters, and no real FE stages, so I wouldn't care at all if FEWU had no relation to it at all. Nor would I want it to ignore the obvious, enormous mechanical improvements made by Three Hopes. Three Hopes should be the gameplay base for such a game. It could even be multi-route with characters from different games becoming allies and enemies. Maybe Ike and Byleth are hired by opposing factions. Maybe Edelgard and Celica's obvious differences in values bring them to bitter conflict. Maybe Robin's obvious similarities to Mark make him an ally for Lyn. 

 

As for roster, I think an approach inclusive to most previous characters is appropriate. A few cuts are sometimes made to keep the old games relevant, but that really only matters if they're still being sold on the same platform as the new game.

 

I think at a minimum:

FEW1 - Chrom, Lucina, Robin, Lissa, Xander, Ryoma, Camilla, Hinoka, Takumi, Leo, Corrin, Azura, Marth, Caeda, Tiki, Minerva, Linde, Celica, Lyn, Anna

FEW3H - Byleth, Shez, all students, Jeritza, Rhea

New - Camus, Sigurd, Lewyn, Leif, Roy, Lilina, Hector, Ninian, Jaffar, Ephraim, Eirika, Lyon, Tana, Duessel, Joshua, Duessel, Innes, Ike, Elincia, Micaiah, Sothe, Naesala, Tibarn, Nasir/Ena, Ranulf/Lethe, Haar, Nephenee

Edited June 22 by Fabulously Olivier

[Use the Falchion]

I do. I've had ideas on how to implement it in the past, but nothing super concrete. I also want a Warriors Spin-off for Genealogy, since I think of all of the settings, it's the best one to have 1 vs 1000 combat and make it feel believable in-universe. Holy Blood and their associated weapons are crazy powerful. 

 

54 minutes ago, Anomalocaris said:

Assuming the gameplay structure is primarily built upon FEW1, what mechanics/features from Three Hopes would you like to see backported in?

Reclassing, but have it limited. Combat Arts and Magic spells for sure. 

 

54 minutes ago, Anomalocaris said:

How should this hypothetical sequel handle Three Houses and its cast now that they've got their own dedicated Warriors game? Should Three Houses be skipped for now in favor of other games? Included but with less emphasis than the others? Go all-in on them yet again?

Go all out, and bring a few students from each house in is what I'd say. 

As for the cast, I had a list before, but I can't remember it. So for now: 

FEW1 Returners: Awakening (Chrom, Robin, Lucina, Lissa, Frederick, Tharja), Fates (Corrin, Azura, Camilla, Hinoka), Marth, Lyn, Celica, Rowan & Lianna alongside a new pair of siblings from a different kingdom. 

Three Hopes Returners: Byleth, Shez, Golden Deer (Claude, Lysithea, Marianne, Lorenz), Blue Lions (Dimitri, Felix, Ingrid, Sylvain or Annette*), Black Eagles (Edelgard, Ferdinand**, Dorothea, Bernadetta)

Newcomers: Blazing Sword (Eliwood, Hector, Pent, Louise, Karla), Sacred Stones (Ephraim, Eirika, Seth, Ines, Tana, L'Archel), Tellius (Ike, Mist, Soren, Titania, Lethe, Ranulf, Micaiah, Sothe) Genealogy (Seliph, Sigurd, Lex, Ayra, Deirdre, Arvis, Julia, Lewyn, Quan, (EDIT: Ethlyn,) Altena), Fates (Kaze, Silas)

 

DLC: Olivia, Ryoma, Xander, Navarre, Ares, Lyon, Jaffar and Nino, Greil, Leif, Sanaki, Alfonse, Sharena, Anna, 

 

**If they decide to recast the role. If not, I'd go with Caspar. 

 

EDIT: Owain/Odin as a DLC character would be a hilarious and probably someone dark character if he has a support with Marianne, since he's all about his "sword hand" and his "cursed blood," but I can see him using that to encourage Marianne to take agency over her specific bloodline and Crest as well. 

Edited June 22 by Use the Falchion

[Anomalocaris]

49 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Yes. A million times YES! We are owed Ike, Roy, Hector, Ephraim, and all the others and I will not be content until they make good. Fire Emblem Warriors: Ultimate. Everyone is here! (I'd also gladly settle for Radiant Dawn Warriors, but I digress).

 

Now, define proper direct sequel. FEW1 had a trash story with dreadful original characters, and no real FE stages, so I wouldn't care at all if FEWU had no relation to it at all. Nor would I want it to ignore the obvious, enormous mechanical improvements made by Three Hopes. Three Hopes should be the gameplay base for such a game. It could even be multi-route with characters from different games becoming allies and enemies. Maybe Ike and Byleth are hired by opposing factions. Maybe Edelgard and Celica's obvious differences in values bring them to bitter conflict. Maybe Robin's obvious similarities to Mark make him an ally for Lyn. 

 

As for roster, I think an approach inclusive to most previous characters is appropriate. A few cuts are sometimes made to keep the old games relevant, but that really only matters if they're still being sold on the same platform as the new game.

 

I think at a minimum:

FEW1 - Chrom, Lucina, Robin, Lissa, Xander, Ryoma, Camilla, Hinoka, Takumi, Leo, Corrin, Azura, Marth, Caeda, Tiki, Minerva, Linde, Celica, Lyn, Anna

FEW3H - Byleth, Shez, all students, Jeritza, Rhea

New - Camus, Sigurd, Lewyn, Leif, Roy, Lilina, Hector, Ninian, Jaffar, Ephraim, Eirika, Lyon, Tana, Duessel, Joshua, Duessel, Innes, Ike, Elincia, Micaiah, Sothe, Naesala, Tibarn, Nasir/Ena, Ranulf/Lethe, Haar, Nephenee

Direct sequel as in similar gameplay structure (short, linear Story Mode with replayable levels, History Mode stuffed full of missions, unlockables, a universal roster where you just unlock characters permanently instead of it being route-based, etc.), but with any changes you'd want to make based on how Three Hopes does things. For example, if you think having a route-based Story Mode with NG+ rather than standard per-level replayability is the way to go, you're free to suggest that.

Side-note, Duessel is apparently so good he made the roster twice. 😛

-------------------------------

For my own wishes, I'd like it if Combat Arts are backported in, with healing magic folded into that. It's a good way to represent weapon durability as well as give a little more customization to the moves players can use. A limited form of reclassing, too: rather than a full class tree like Three Hopes uses, I'd just give each character a primary class they start out in, and a secondary class that can be unlocked. Characters all having personal skills that stick with them regardless of class would also be a good feature from Three Hopes, though I'd limit it to just two per person; an active skill that sometimes includes a unique attack like Mercedes', and a tactical skill that affects their performance when given orders. The standard, shareable skills from FEW1 would probably also return but might be distributed differently.

Roster-wise I'd like it if they brought back the full roster and movesets from FEW1 and strictly added new characters and movesets to it. I'd like a handful of Three Houses folks but not the full roster to avoid bloating it or being redundant with Three Hopes. Some of them would use classes that already had movesets in FEW1, but some would bring Three Hopes movesets along with them, adapted for compatability:

• Byleth (unique Enlightened One moveset)
• Edelgard (Axe Armor Lord moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Hubert (Dark Mage moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Bernadetta (Archer moveset based on Takumi's)
• Ferdinand (Lance Cavalier moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Dimitri (Lance Lord moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Dedue (Axe Armor moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Annette (Mage moveset based on Robin's)
• Felix (Swordmaster moveset based on Lyn's or Samurai moveset based on Ryoma's, not sure which fits him better)
• Claude (Bow Wyvern moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Hilda (Axe Fighter moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Lysithea (Dark Mage moveset, same as Hubert. Ironic since she can't actually use that in Three Hopes, but I'm making an executive decision here. 😛 )
• Raphael (Brawler moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Seteth (New Lance Wyvern moveset)
• Flayn (Priest moveset based on Linde's)
• Shez as a bonus character unlocked in History Mode (unique Fluegel moveset)

That's 16 characters, more than even Fates' 12 with DLC, but I think it's fine; Three Houses is a big game with a big cast, and porting over Three Hopes assets would speed it up. They'd be based on the original Three Houses depictions and have their pre- and post-timeskip designs available by default, but with their Three Hopes costumes as unlockable rewards.

Of course, Three Houses wouldn't be the only "new" game represented, but that's a topic for another time. I just wanted to integrate some Three Hopes characters and movesets back into "standard" Fire Emblem Warriors.

Edited June 22 by Anomalocaris

[Fabulously Olivier]

16 minutes ago, Anomalocaris said:

Direct sequel as in similar gameplay structure (short, linear Story Mode with replayable levels, History Mode stuffed full of missions, unlockables, etc.), but with any changes you'd want to make based on how Three Hopes does things. For example, if you think having a route-based Story Mode with NG+ rather than standard per-level replayability is the way to go, you're free to suggest that.

Side-note, Duessel is apparently so good he made the roster twice. 😛

-------------------------------

For my own wishes, I'd like it if Combat Arts are backported in, with healing magic folded into that. It's a good way to represent weapon durability as well as give a little more customization to the moves players can use. A limited form of reclassing, too: rather than a full class tree like Three Hopes uses, I'd just give each character a primary class they start out in, and a secondary class that can be unlocked. Characters all having personal skills that stick with them regardless of class would also be a good feature from Three Hopes, though I'd limit it to just two per person; an active skill that sometimes includes a unique attack like Mercedes', and a tactical skill that affects their performance when given orders. The standard, shareable skills from FEW1 would probably also return but might be distributed differently.

Roster-wise I'd like it if they brought back the full roster and movesets from FEW1 and strictly added new characters and movesets to it. I'd like a handful of Three Houses folks but not the full roster to avoid bloating it or being redundant with Three Hopes. Some of them would use classes that already had movesets in FEW1, but some would bring Three Hopes movesets along with them, adapted for compatability:

• Byleth (unique Enlightened One moveset)
• Edelgard (Axe Armor Lord moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Hubert (Dark Mage moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Bernadetta (Archer moveset based on Takumi's)
• Ferdinand (Lance Cavalier moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Dimitri (Lance Lord moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Dedue (Axe Armor moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Annette (Mage moveset based on Robin's)
• Felix (Swordmaster moveset based on Lyn's or Samurai moveset based on Ryoma's, not sure which fits him better)
• Claude (Bow Wyvern moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Hilda (Axe Fighter moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Lysithea (Dark Mage moveset, same as Hubert. Ironic since she can't actually use that in Three Hopes, but I'm making an executive decision here. 😛 )
• Raphael (Brawler moveset based on the Three Hopes version)
• Seteth (New Lance Wyvern moveset)
• Flayn (Priest moveset based on Linde's)
• Shez as a bonus character unlocked in History Mode (unique Fluegel moveset)

That's 16 characters, more than even Fates' 12 with DLC, but I think it's fine; Three Houses is a big game with a big cast, and porting over Three Hopes assets would speed it up. They'd be based on the original Three Houses depictions and have their pre- and post-timeskip designs available by default, but with their Three Hopes costumes as unlockable rewards.

Hmm. I would consider any non-canon crossover-based FEW:U/FEW2 to be a sequel to FEW, regardless of how it is structured. I think, as a compromise, multiple routes, without the need for NG+. Treat each route as a separate "board" akin to how History Mode works. I don't think you need a dedicated History Mode when there is plenty of space on those maps to put in the missions that would have been in History Mode on the board. Once you clear any mission, the Free Mode version opens up, allowing you to use characters from other routes on that mission. And once you clear any routes story, the whole route opens up to free mode.

 

I think the story/routes should be similar to 3 Hopes, with characters from different games coming into conflict with eachother. That's interesting storytelling. That's the sort of thing these fanservice crossovers should be. I'll die on that hill.

 

I like the idea of class sets over reclassing, but I'd raise it from 2 to 3. Why? Because it cuts down on the odds of multiple characters sharing the exact same set of classes. IE: Robin, Owain, and Lysithea all make the most sense as Dark Mage/Mortal Savant, but with 3 classes, you open up Robin to have say... Dark Knight while Lysithea gains Dark Flier and Owain gains Swordmaster.

Edited June 22 by Fabulously Olivier

[Anomalocaris]

17 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Hmm. I would consider any non-canon crossover-based FEW:U/FEW2 to be a sequel to FEW, regardless of how it is structured. I think, as a compromise, multiple routes, without the need for NG+. Treat each route as a separate "board" akin to how History Mode works. I don't think you need a dedicated History Mode when there is plenty of space on those maps to put in the missions that would have been in History Mode on the board. Once you clear any mission, the Free Mode version opens up, allowing you to use characters from other routes on that mission.

 

I think the story/routes should be similar to 3 Hopes, with characters from different games coming into conflict with eachother. That's interesting storytelling. That's the sort of thing these fanservice crossovers should be. I'll die on that hill.

 

I like the idea of class sets over reclassing, but I'd raise it from 2 to 3. Why? Because it cuts down on the odds of multiple characters sharing the exact same set of classes. IE: Robin, Owain, and Lysithea all make the most sense as Dark Mage/Mortal Savant, but with 3 classes, you open up Robin to have say... Dark Knight while Lysithea gains Dark Flier and Owain gains Swordmaster.

A branching story that is nevertheless replayable is not a bad idea; there's even some minor precedence for it in the original game, with the Fates part of the story split into two parallel routes that eventually converge. I can get behind that.

However, gonna disagree on ditching History Mode. The advantage of History Mode (and one thing I can already tell I'm gonna miss in Three Hopes) is the missions all being non-canon to the story mode. Without that constraint, it allowed them to use the roster freely and let you fight actual named enemy commanders even if it wouldn't make sense story-wise, like Marth being an enemy, or Sakura and Validar being on the same team, or whatever. I want that to return so we can have more creative battles than just fighting nothing but nameless captains.

3 classes per character can certainly work, it's just a lot more work assuming their secondary and tertiary classes all have unique outfits, Warrior Specials, and/or perf. weapons. I guess outfit changes could be ditched for the most part, though it may look weird if you have stuff like Dedue wearing his armor but being considered a non-armored class, or vice-versa.

Edited June 22 by Anomalocaris

[Fabulously Olivier]

37 minutes ago, Anomalocaris said:

A branching story that is nevertheless replayable is not a bad idea; there's even some minor precedence for it in the original game, with the Fates part of the story split into two parallel routes that eventually converge. I can get behind that.

However, gonna disagree on ditching History Mode. The advantage of History Mode (and one thing I can already tell I'm gonna miss in Three Hopes) is the missions all being non-canon to the story mode. Without that constraint, it allowed them to use the roster freely and let you fight actual named enemy commanders even if it wouldn't make sense story-wise, like Marth being an enemy, or Sakura and Validar being on the same team, or whatever. I want that to return so we can have more creative battles than just fighting nothing but nameless captains.

3 classes per character can certainly work, it's just a lot more work assuming their secondary and tertiary classes all have unique outfits, Warrior Specials, and/or perf. weapons. I guess outfit changes could be ditched for the most part, though it may look weird if.

You bring up an interesting point about History Mode, but I'd propose an even better, more elegant solution. One or more non-canon Outrealm maps of varying difficulty, which follows the rules of Dream/Nightmare Log in One Piece Pirate Warriors 3. That is to say, randomly-chosen maps with randomly-generated combinations of named officers and random restrictions/rules. These would all have generic flavor text describing the story of the randomly generated mission. Some missions are designated "boss missions" that give big progression rewards, and one mission is designated as the boss of the whole map. Clearing the end boss mission resets the whole board, restarting the process as many times as you want. Very fun, straightforward, and infinitely-replayable mode.

Edited June 22 by Fabulously Olivier

[Anomalocaris]

5 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

You bring up an interesting point about History Mode, but I'd propose an even better, more elegant solution. One or more non-canon Rift maps of varying difficulty, which follows the rules of Dream/Nightmare Log in One Piece Pirate Warriors 3. That is to say, randomly-chosen maps with randomly-generated combinations of named officers. Some missions are designated "boss missions" that give big progression rewards, and one mission is designated as the boss of the whole map. Clearing the end boss mission resets the whole board, restarting the process as many times as you want. Very fun, straightforward, and infinitely-replayable mode.

An interesting concept, and randomly-generated missions would definitely add more replayability to the game, but I don't think it can replace History Mode; you lose out on the sense of progression, and randomly-generated missions will never be as balanced as missions that were manually crafted by the devs, even if all the pieces feel interchangeable.

That being said, the mode you're suggesting sounds perfect for a Chain Challenge mode like I've always been hawking as the best way to implement perma-death: play through a sequence of five or six randomly-generated missions using only eight chosen characters; any who die during a mission are dead for the remainder of the chain challenge, and healing is limited so you have to actually budget your heal uses. Big rewards for clearing the "boss mission" at the end of the challenge.

[Fabulously Olivier]

5 minutes ago, Anomalocaris said:

An interesting concept, and randomly-generated missions would definitely add more replayability to the game, but I don't think it can replace History Mode; you lose out on the sense of progression, and randomly-generated missions will never be as balanced as missions that were manually crafted by the devs, even if all the pieces feel interchangeable.

That being said, the mode you're suggesting sounds perfect for a Chain Challenge mode like I've always been hawking as the best way to implement perma-death: play through a sequence of five or six randomly-generated missions using only eight chosen characters; any who die during a mission are dead for the remainder of the chain challenge, and healing is limited so you have to actually budget your heal uses. Big rewards for clearing the "boss mission" at the end of the challenge.

It's more so that they can free up those manual work hours to make the story routes as good as possible and flesh out the roster. And trust me, if you'd actually played Dream/Nightmare Log, you'd know that the generated missions do feel roughly as good as most crafted ones, and the average player wouldn't know the difference as long as you included all of the necessary mission types (fort siege, defense, shadow assault, etc.) and set the parameters within a few acceptable spawn locations per stage. Warriors games just aren't that intricate.

[Anomalocaris]

16 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

It's more so that they can free up those manual work hours to make the story routes as good as possible and flesh out the roster. And trust me, if you'd actually played Dream/Nightmare Log, you'd know that the generated missions do feel roughly as good as most crafted ones, and the average player wouldn't know the difference as long as you included all of the necessary mission types (fort siege, defense, shadow assault, etc.) and set the parameters within a few acceptable spawn locations per stage. Warriors games just aren't that intricate.

Fair enough.

I do still miss History Mode for other reasons (the references to the source games, the silly dialogue exchanges, the sense of progression, etc.) and it was my favorite part of the previous game, so I'm afraid I cannot budge on wanting it back, but I can respect your position.

Edited June 23 by Anomalocaris

[Fabulously Olivier]

5 minutes ago, Anomalocaris said:

Fair enough.

I do still miss History Mode for other reasons (the references to the source games, the silly dialogue exchanges, the sense of progression, etc.) and it was my favorite part of the previous game, so I'm afraid I cannot budge on wanting it back, but I can respect your position.

History Mode is excellent, and fair enough. I just think it isn't the only route towards that kind of endgame quality. (Silly dialogue aside. That was cringe).

[vanguard333]

Only if Ike and other Tellius characters are in it. How did they make Fire Emblem Warriors and think, "We should leave out the only FE lord that actually is a one-man army in his own games"? That would be like making a Warriors crossover with Breath of the Wild and leaving out the part where Link almost dies protecting Zelda from a massive horde of corrupted guardians; you're leaving out the part that already was practically gift-wrapped for a Warriors crossover.

…Oh, wait; they did that too. That was a bad example.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

Yes, I would absolutely still like to see a dedicated FEW2. I still want to see more than just Awakening and Fates getting attention, and I don't want to see Three Houses getting complete dedication again. I'd love to see the good gameplay aspects of both FEW1 and Three Hopes combined in some way, with a balanced roster between all the games. A roster that maybe looks something like this:

• Shadow Dragon/(New) Mystery of the Emblem: Marth, Caeda, Tiki, Minerva, Linde, Navarre, Camus, Nyna, Ogma, Merric
• Gaiden/Echoes: Alm, Celica, Lukas, Clair, Clive, Silque, Saber, Mae, Boey, Conrad
• Genealogy of the Holy War: Sigurd, Deirdre, Ayra, Tailtiu, Lewyn, Seliph, Julia, Ced, Ares, Altena
• Thracia 776: Leif, Nanna, Finn, Eyvel, Mareeta, Linoan, Deen, Olwen, Sara, Saias
• Binding Blade: Roy, Lilina, Fae, Cecilia, Sophia, Melady, Sue, Rutger, Klein, Thea
• Blazing Blade: Eliwood, Hector, Lyn, Ninian, Nils, Nino, Jaffar, Florina, Pent, Louise
• Sacred Stones: Eirika, Ephraim, Myrrh, Joshua, L'Arachel, Innes, Tana, Seth, Cormag, Saleh
• Path of Radiance/Radiant Dawn: Ike, Mist, Soren, Titania, Elincia, Micaiah, Sothe, Jill, Brom, Nephenee
• Awakening: Chrom, Lucina, Robin, Lissa, Frederick, Cordelia, Olivia, Tharja, Owain, Inigo
• Fates: Corrin, Azura, Ryoma, Xander, Hinoka, Camilla, Takumi, Leo, Sakura, Elise
• Three Houses: Byleth, Edelgard, Hubert, Bernadetta, Dimitri, Dedue, Felix, Claude, Hilda, Marianne

Ten characters from each game for the base starter roster, with DLC potential for characters like Matthew, Lysithea, Julian and Lena, and others. Marth's games and Ike's games combined because, unlike the Elibe and Jugdral games where 90% of the cast is new separate and unrelated, the Marth/Ike games share 90% of their cast.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I'm not generally of the opinion that a "perfectly balanced" roster is actually balanced, much less optimal. Just, realistically, Thracia's cast is not as well-liked as Geneology's. Binding Blade's cast is nowhere near as loved as Blazing Swords', Roy and Lilina aside. PoR/Radiant Dawn requires more characters for proper representation than Gaiden does. And as much as I adore Sacred Stones, it's not punching in the same weight class as Three Houses.

 

I think it's important to think about who is core to each game, include them, and consider moveset balance as a secondary. Does Thracia need 10 characters? No. Leif alone is enough, Reinhardt/Olwen would be a great idea, and Evayle or Mareeta would be awesome. Binding Blade is doing pretty solid with just Roy and Lilina, good with Cecilia, and awesome with Elphin and/or Echidna. Meanwhile Tellius has a lot of really big plot-moving characters, and a lot of popular characters on top of that; it's one of those alongside Geneology that make the most sense for a dedicated game, or a big roster in a crossover game.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

I wholly disagree. Just because one game's cast isn't as beloved as another's doesn't mean that game should have less attention. As for sufficient or "proper" representation goes, it is simply not possible to sufficiently compare something like Tellius to Sacred Stones, or Archanea to Blazing Blade, since each and every game in the franchise has different numbers of playable characters, ranging from as high as 70 to as low as 30, the best thing to do is just pick a baseline number for overall representation and apply to all games. Tellius having 15 characters but Binding Blade only having 2 is NOT optimal, or proper/sufficient representation. It also just isn't fair to compare only important characters for each game when something like Awakening only has Chrom, Lucina, and Robin, compared to Genealogy where they have Sigurd, Deirdre, Julia, Seliph, Lewyn, Altena, etc. You have to just pick a number and apply it to everyone, it's the fairest way.

If you really, REALLY wanna go down the path of "proper" and "sufficient" representation, then just having Byleth, Edelgard, Dimitri, and Claude is sufficient for Three Houses. Only Ike, Micaiah, and maybe Elincia is sufficient for Tellius, you don't NEED anyone else. Sigurd and Seliph, maybe Julia, is all you truly need for Genealogy. Does that seem right? No, it doesn't. But only having Leif for Thracia isn't right, either, nor is it sufficient or proper representation for Thracia 776. That game has more important and/or plot-moving characters than most people give it credit for, several of which I already mentioned (Nanna, Finn, Eyvel, Mareeta, Sara). Just like having only Alm and Celica for Echoes isn't really sufficient or proper representation for that game.

With all of that said, though, I DID try to keep in mind plot relevance/importance and popularity. Almost every character I picked for each game has that for their respective game, with only a few not. I also tried to keep in mind class balance, which is where some of those less popular characters fit in (along with a couple being connected to another character in some way).

[Fabulously Olivier]

41 minutes ago, Fire Emblem Fan said:

I wholly disagree. Just because one game's cast isn't as beloved as another's doesn't mean that game should have less attention. 

I don't agree. At all. Because there's no practical backing for that. It doesn't make sense financially because fewer people are interested, and it doesn't make sense in terms of making the best game for the most people. There's a balance to hit between respecting every game's fans and intelligently focusing on what is going to sell the most copies, and that's a balance that FEW did not hit. I say that full well knowing that most of my favorite characters are too niche to ever have a realistic chance in any roster short of a wholly dedicated one like Three Hopes.

 

If you're making a Marvel musou, you don't weigh the Inhumans on par with the X-men. Because who the Hell cares about most of the Inhumans?

[Fire Emblem Fan]

3 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

There's a balance to hit between respecting every game's fans and intelligently focusing on what is going to sell the most copies, and that's a balance that FEW did not hit.

If that's the philosophy you want to use, then...yes, FEW did hit that balance. What would sell the most copies? Awakening and Fates. Throw in Marth and a couple of Shadow Dragon characters, the super popular Lyn, and one of the protagonists from the upcoming Gaiden remake, call it a day, and you have one of the most logical, financially sound game you can possibly have. Older fans get some fanservice, and Awakening and Fates guarantee sales. The only characters missing are Ike and Roy, and that's it. No one else. As for respecting every game's fans, well, with this philosophy, does Tellius actually have fans, outside of Ike fans? Not in the eyes of IS, not at that time. Tellius had been a financial failure. Genealogy, Thracia, and Sacred Stones? Too niche for any impact at the time, even by Fire Emblem standards. The only characters of note from any of those three games are the Renais twins. What fans are there to respect? This goes right along with your X-Men and Inhumans comparison. FEW hit EXACTLY that balance (sans Ike and Roy). Keep in mind that FEW was considered a financial success.

3 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

and it doesn't make sense in terms of making the best game for the most people.

It makes perfect sense for making the best game for the most people. Not balancing the roster between games is what makes no sense for the best game for the most people. The most people is "all" so, for example, why would you give Echoes fans nothing but Alm and Celica, but then give Tellius fans every royal laguz, every Greil mercenary, and all the Crimean Knights? That makes no sense for the best game for the most people.

3 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I say that full well knowing that most of my favorite characters are too niche to ever have a realistic chance in any roster short of a wholly dedicated one like Three Hopes.

You're talking to a Brom fan.

[Fabulously Olivier]

16 minutes ago, Fire Emblem Fan said:

If that's the philosophy you want to use, then...yes, FEW did hit that balance. What would sell the most copies? Awakening and Fates. Throw in Marth and a couple of Shadow Dragon characters, the super popular Lyn, and one of the protagonists from the upcoming Gaiden remake, call it a day, and you have one of the most logical, financially sound game you can possibly have. Older fans get some fanservice, and Awakening and Fates guarantee sales. The only characters missing are Ike and Roy, and that's it. No one else. As for respecting every game's fans, well, with this philosophy, does Tellius actually have fans, outside of Ike fans? Not in the eyes of IS, not at that time. Tellius had been a financial failure. Genealogy, Thracia, and Sacred Stones? Too niche for any impact at the time, even by Fire Emblem standards. The only characters of note from any of those three games are the Renais twins. What fans are there to respect? This goes right along with your X-Men and Inhumans comparison. FEW hit EXACTLY that balance (sans Ike and Roy). Keep in mind that FEW was considered a financial success.

It makes perfect sense for making the best game for the most people. Not balancing the roster between games is what makes no sense for the best game for the most people. The most people is "all" so, for example, why would you give Echoes fans nothing but Alm and Celica, but then give Tellius fans every royal laguz, every Greil mercenary, and all the Crimean Knights? That makes no sense for the best game for the most people.

You're talking to a Brom fan.

To that I say take a look at the polling numbers of characters. If you honestly, for one second, believe that a game without any of the top 4 male characters in the franchise at the time of its release hit the correct balance, then I have no need to discuss this further with you.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

17 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

To that I say take a look at the polling numbers of characters. If you honestly, for one second, believe that a game without any of the top 4 male characters in the franchise at the time of its release hit the correct balance, then I have no need to discuss this further with you.

Which polls? CYL 1? In CYL 1, if you combine Marth's Shadow Dragon and New Mystery numbers, he's 4th place for all males, beating out Chrom and being behind only Ike, Roy, and Hector. And if you separate them, then Chrom is 4th...and Marth is still 5th.

Anyway. Not once did I say I believed they hit the right balance. But what you described, your philosophy, is exactly what FEW did. Don't try and turn it around as if it's my philosophy or belief. It isn't. All I did was break down your own philosophy. I made it pretty clear more than once that I believe FEW should balance ALL the mainline games and have ALL those main major characters, I don't think FEW hit the balance at all. Don't be mad that your own idea of what FEW should have done or should do is exactly what FEW did...just not with characters you personally like. And don't be mad at me for pointing it out.

[Fabulously Olivier]

14 minutes ago, Fire Emblem Fan said:

Which polls? CYL 1? In CYL 1, if you combine Marth's Shadow Dragon and New Mystery numbers, he's 4th place for all males, beating out Chrom and being behind only Ike, Roy, and Hector. And if you separate them, then Chrom is 4th...and Marth is still 5th.

Anyway. Not once did I say I believed they hit the right balance. But what you described, your philosophy, is exactly what FEW did. Don't try and turn it around as if it's my philosophy or belief. It isn't. All I did was break down your own philosophy. I made it pretty clear more than once that I believe FEW should balance ALL the mainline games and have ALL those main major characters, I don't think FEW hit the balance at all. Don't be mad that your own idea of what FEW should have done or should do is exactly what FEW did...just not with characters you personally like. And don't be mad at me for pointing it out.

Oh fuck off. I will not hear excuses for a character who took five years to win and even then still lost to a literal meme. Even if I did, that is still 3 of 4 missing.

 

And I am fully free to acknowledge that I think the philosophy of FEW was right while thinking that the balance was off. I don't have to be for complete and total equality to think that what we got wasn't quite right.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

7 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Oh fuck off. I will not hear excuses for a character who took five years to win and even then still lost to a literal meme. Even if I did, that is still 3 of 4 missing.

 

And I am fully free to acknowledge that I think the philosophy of FEW was right while thinking that the balance was off. I don't have to be for complete and total equality to think that what we got wasn't quite right.

First, calm down. You said the four most popular males in the franchise, by CYL 1, were not in FEW. That is false. That's it. There's no excuses being made. That's just a simple fact, with actual literal numerical results behind it. You are absolutely free to dislike Marth, but the lengths you go to show that dislike have gotten increasingly ridiculous over the years here on these forums. Not once in this discussion has either of us brought up anything about Marth's popularity, aside from just now this instance.

Second, calm down. You're right, you don't have to be for complete equality to think that what we got wasn't quite right. But you also will not try to shift it and say I believe that.

Third, calm down. Go be a dick to someone else. I will not stand for it and I have no patience for it. You want someone to fuck off? Maybe you should.

[Fabulously Olivier]

22 minutes ago, Fire Emblem Fan said:

First, calm down. You said the four most popular males in the franchise, by CYL 1, were not in FEW. That is false. That's it. There's no excuses being made. That's just a simple fact, with actual literal numerical results behind it. You are absolutely free to dislike Marth, but the lengths you go to show that dislike have gotten increasingly ridiculous over the years here on these forums. Not once in this discussion has either of us brought up anything about Marth's popularity, aside from just now this instance.

Second, calm down. You're right, you don't have to be for complete equality to think that what we got wasn't quite right. But you also will not try to shift it and say I believe that.

Third, calm down. Go be a dick to someone else. I will not stand for it and I have no patience for it. You want someone to fuck off? Maybe you should.

You have a history of taking things the wrong way, overreacting, getting defensive, and then calling out the other person for the same thing, as you are doing right now. I'll admit that I probably do need to chill, but so do you. You know why we tend to argue? Because we're similar and just happen to disagree on things. So it's not like I even dislike you.

 

Second, either I was unclear, or you received the message unclearly if you believe I was trying to flip that belief on you. I wasn't. But you do not get to decide for other people what their standards are or whether something should have met them. I do not like being told that I should have been satisfied with what I got, after years of asking for something better.

Edited June 23 by Fabulously Olivier

[Fire Emblem Fan]

On 6/23/2022 at 4:47 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

You have a history of taking things the wrong way, overreacting, getting defensive, and then calling out the other person for the same thing, as you are doing right now. I'll admit that I probably do need to chill, but so do you. You know why we tend to argue? Because we're similar and just happen to disagree on things.

Are you serious right now? Holy crap, you're serious. Okay, cool. Fine.

First of all, I've been on these forums for a decade, and in all of that time the vast majority of arguments I've had have been with the same couple of users, including you. This history you speak of does not exist.

I don't take things the wrong way. I respond to people's direct words, in quotes for full context. I am, 100% of the time, immediately told to "fuck off" or some such thing, by you. I am never given any clarification when I ask. I am always at fault, according to you. You immediately double down...and then accuse me of taking things the wrong way. After literally just now taking something I said the wrong way. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it.

Secondly, please, tell me how the hell I'm supposed to react. Please, tell me. Should I call a mod? According to you, any reaction is an overreaction. Just so long as you get to keep treating people like dirt, right?

Third, of course I'm defensive! It seems like I have to continuously put up with this shit from you, and we haven't even had an argument for a long time! You do know you're the one who has started every disagreement we've ever had, right?

Fourth, I don't call anyone out for anything unless it's actually been done, in direct quotes. This very topic, for example, my last post right before this one is the only post where I've posted with any kind of anger or annoyance. I thought the discussion was going pretty well, truth be told! And then you, yes, you act like a dick and tell me to fuck off. Not me, you. You got mad at me, not the other way around.

You wanna know the cold, hard fact? You treat me like absolute shit. Complete and total shit. We're not similar at all, I actually try having a nice discussion before blowing up.

On 6/23/2022 at 4:47 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

So it's not like I even dislike you.

You have a funny way of showing it.

On 6/23/2022 at 4:47 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

Second, either I was unclear, or you received the message unclearly if you believe I was trying to flip that belief on you. I wasn't.

Are you sure?

On 6/23/2022 at 3:28 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

To that I say take a look at the polling numbers of characters. If you honestly, for one second, believe that a game without any of the top 4 male characters in the franchise at the time of its release hit the correct balance, then I have no need to discuss this further with you.

Because it sounds as if you're inferring that I did believe that. And if you're not, then why the hell even say this? It doesn't make any sense.

On 6/23/2022 at 4:47 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

But you do not get to decide for other people what their standards are or whether something should have met them. I do not like being told that I should have been satisfied with what I got, after years of asking for something better.

Well, shit, ditto to you, too!

"Ugh, you took it the wrong way!" You literally just told me to fuck off. There is no other way to take that. You told me to fuck off and then, for some fucked up reason, went the route of post history? Not even true post history. So, fine, I'm fucking off. You win. If you want to start actually lying now because...reasons?...then fine. Please, leave me alone. I'm not playing this game. I'm not going the extremely low-blow dirty route of bringing up your post history (misconstrued and portrayed wrong, in your case with mine here). Just leave me alone. I'm sure you'll portray this whole post as me overreacting and taking it the wrong way, right? Lol.

 

Edit: Yup, right on schedule, lol "UgH yOu PoRtRaYeD eVeRyOnE eLsE aS tHe PrObLeM" because of course you're never ever EVER doing anything wrong, just me, always me, 100% of the time. That's your MO, true to character right there. You're such a prick.

Edit edit: No, you don't get to say "oh well I didn't mean anything by that 'fuck off' thing." That's so idiotic, you don't tell people that and then try to cover yourself up with gross excuses like that. Then again, you never actually own up to anything, I guess I should expect this.

Edited June 25 by Fire Emblem Fan

[Fabulously Olivier]

Spoiler

 

For the record, I apologize for hurting your feelings. But ugh... you do realize that you just portrayed everyone else as the problem. There's no nice way of putting that. We don't all have a problem, and I respectfully don't think the mods should be a weapon to bludgeon people with when you have an argument. You know how many times I've reported someone I had an argument with? None.

 

The fuck off bit was for emphasis. I swear a lot. That's just me. No, I don't care. No, I don't mean offense. No, I'm not actually telling you to go away. I just grow tired of that particular line of rhetoric from Marth fans. It's just like the people who make up a billion excuses for Metroid not selling, while still treating Fire Emblem like a niche franchise beneath the likes of F-Zero. Sometimes, you're just tired of it.

 

And I'm done. I don't actually enjoy arguments, and my stress levels are high as is.

 

Edited June 23 by Fabulously Olivier