NekoKnight

29 and I can concur. I can't say I hate teenage protagonists but it's a breath of fresh air to have someone older and in a position of authority even if it's only by a few years. I think it's better that Byleth is an outsider of the school system. So far, every character introduced is a student so we could really use more outside influences and perspective.

Just my concerns that carried over from the last games in the series. Gratuitous player worship and a cast/tone that reflects shameless anime trends. Not saying it has to be that, but there is definitely precedence. Edit: Actually, there is one more thing. I'm concerned the game will be ugly. There are a number of things that don't impress me so far such as the lame generics and the cutscenes being so choppy. This is the first return to consoles since Radiant Dawn. I don't want them to half-ass it.

I don't think these points stand up to scrutiny. >Alm unwillingly kills the last two members of his family. Even if Alm put two and two together to figure out his true identity, killing Rudolf and Berkut would be unavoidable unless Alm backed out of the war, which by that point would be very out of character. And not listening to Mycen and Celica? Mycen intentionally kept Alm in the dark and Celica didn't know Alm was Rudolf's son. >Gets tricked by Nuibaba And then he marches up to her front door, kills her and saves Tatiana which in turn allows Camus to join up with them. A pretty positive outcome. >Gets heavily criticized if Mathilda dies in her cell This is a well written bit of dialogue if it does happen but as it only happens when the player plays very badly, it can't be considered a canon outcome. Were that so, you could consider Alm letting all of his friends die in the war (it can happen if you let it) when judging his flaws as a character. >Fails at understanding Celica Their miscommunication is entirely the fault of Celica who hides all of the relevant information that would resolve their conflict >Only saves Celica because Milla intervenes This is technically correct but I don't know what it says about Alm. >He is completely oblivious to what's actually going on behind the scenes. Thanks to Mycen and Celica. And yet Alm knows enough to do everything that is required to be the hero. >Him being praised is something that happens to nigh every FE protagonist. This is only true for some protagonists. Roy fits a similar pattern of always making the correct decisions despite Merlinus cautioning against his actions, but most lords are not praised to the extent Alm is. Alm gets talked about being Zofia's future king long before anyone even knows he's royalty and Tobin's conclusion is that Alm is just naturally better than him and everyone in Ram village because of some innate quality. Clive's big character moment was realizing that Alm is wiser and more competent than he is. All of this is backed up by Alm never making mistakes that could be attributed to his own flaws. Even if you think Celica's actions fit her character or think her journey had some merits, Alm is a much more relatable character. Alm is brave, honest and direct where Celica is emotional, dishonest and stubborn. Alm is dealing with an immediate and visible problem where Celica handwaves it because she doesn't want to deal with it personally. Alm explains his reasoning to Celica and offers to stand down if someone more qualified can take his place and Celica screams unfounded accusations and storms off without explaining herself. Alm's journey from the start is always making the moral and correct choice but starting from part 4, all of Celica's actions are misguided, lead her party and herself into peril and ultimately she admits everything she believed in was wrong. I can't see their characters as being even remotely even.

Everyone values different things. Some people mash the A button through story sections on repeat play throughs but I never would because an RPG is an interactive story to me and skipping the story is missing half the experience. Of course having good gameplay is also critical which is why I stopped playing Tactics Ogre and Undertale despite their often lauded stories (I really wanted to keep playing Tactics Ogre but that gameplay was frustrating). At least you can enjoy a game's story on YouTube even if the gameplay blows (or you just aren't that good at it, like for me and The Last of Us, lol). Some people often make the point that gameplay is the most critical part of a game, and while I don't disagree, if I found a game had good gameplay (60% of the experience) but it had a revolting story (40% of the experience), I'd still call that being a failure. I'd say people who value stories as much as me are a minority of players, sadly. A lot of people are utterly disinterested in writing quality (Fates is extremely popular despite it being so terribly written it borders on parody).

I probably wouldn't play it. To put it into perspective, Fates was actively a less enjoyable experience on account of the writing. Revelation was so boring I never finished it and the protagonist was so loathesome I'm still talking about it years later. Fates had good gameplay but the writing was approaching intolerable, which is not something I want to spent my time on.

All very good questions of which I have few answers to. Often a dynasty change can be clearly marked through major policy changes or a different ethnic group taking over but it's not always that simple. I would think that the larger a territory, such as say, an empire spanning a third of the continent, the more likely a state ruled by a single dynasty will collapse and change. More land means more distance for soldiers to travel and more people of different groups and interests. Perhaps magic/crests/other fantastic elements allow greater unity and control in a large nation comparable to modern times. That said, we still have yet to see what is commonly interpreted as a 1000 year dynasty in real life and we don't know much about the geography, history and ethnic groups of the Adrestian Empire.

This. Another comment that irks me is the "go read a book if you want a good story". Acting like games can't or shouldn't have good stories just because there is a medium that focuses exclusively on writing is just bizarre. I don't expect a game to be able to go as in depth into developing its characters or world as a book is able to, but I will judge it based on what is possible in the medium and how much the game prioritizes having a story. Are Fire Emblem games comparable to the greatest epics of literature? Of course not, and no one expects them to be. A game story can still be competently told, have endearing characters and a well defined world. That's what makes a good story, regardless of how many pages the script could fill.

I think fantasy stories greatly exaggerated the realistic longevity of dynasties. Even in the case of Japan, the actual control of the country has shifted between several different factions and families. Sure the imperial line in Japan continues on but that's because the institution only has as much power as the ruling faction allows it to. It probably just sounds cooler to say "Marth started a dynasty that lasted a thousand years" than " it lasted few hundred years before their influence waned and another rival power we know very little about overthrew them and started another dynasty." All that said, Fire Emblem especially has a fondness for holy bloodlines, chosen ones and a highly romanticized look at feudalism so maybe they can get away with saying that a family is so special that no one ever questions or threatens their authority for hundreds of years.

I've seen a few people reply to this thread with their belief that all of the protagonists are on a similar level, without really explaining in detail why they came to that conclusion. If you think most of the writing in the series is mediocre to bad or that writing quality is purely subjective, that's fine. I can't argue against your feelings, those belong to you. But I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged that's just how you feel instead of ignoring or deflecting the majority of counterarguments people reply with. I made this thread to have a critical look at what protagonists have been for the series and offer my argument for those that were not good. If you don't want to critically engage that topic, I don't know why you're here.

Ephraim storming the castle and the blood pact are often criticized and rightfully so. No one is claiming that the other stories are without flaws. Fates however is widely considered as being the worst story in the series not for a single flaw, but countless. In regards to Corrin, his mistakes are indeed "in character" but apart from that character being incredibly frustrating, the other characters are always there to absolve him all of his sins and have an unreasonably high opinion of him. We can both agree that Corrin messes up in a lot of ways but can you name a single thing he does that doesn't get forgiven by the rest of the cast? The player worship gets so bad Corrin is even PRAISED for his flaws. I can't tell you to dislike a character you like, but I also can't take it seriously if one has the opinion that Corrin is just as flawed as any other protagonist. The only arguments in favor of him leave out the very important context that the game presents him as being blameless. I won't be a member of the fandom if the stories ever get so bad that Corrin is considered one of the better characters.

Have you played the other routes? Most of the flak he gets is from them. You are correct that Birthright is mostly standard fair for Fire Emblem plots.

I know, I shouldn't speak so derisively of those who need the confidence boost. If a video game makes you feel better about yourself, that's great, I just wish it didn't come at the expense of the writing quality. I like to think the series is also for people like me and not just adolescents. A lot of gamers are adults now.

I'm okay with this sentiment. It's not how I appreciate games all the time but I recognize that it's not inherently problematic. The problem is IS has a terrible track record of writing good self-inserts. They're usually inoffensive and bland, doing nothing noteworthy as characters which just makes the tidal wave of player worship just that much more grating. My life isn't so unfulfilling that I need the emotional crutch of a video game telling me I'm a flawless individual and that everyone loves me. In my mind, a good avatar is one who participates in a story but doesn't define the events, because IS will never write them competently. This is just wrong. Corrin gets criticized by who? Villains who never make valid points? The problem with Corrin is that the first bolded section is true and the second one is absolutely false. In Conquest you make countless bad calls that lead to many people dying, and the game constantly reminds you that nothing is your fault. Everyone who criticizes you is wrong and any self-doubt Corrin has should be ignored because Corrin has a divine purpose. The game (in both Conquest and Birthright) even has an afterlife scene where everyone who Corrin failed says that Corrin isn't at fault. Did you find it curious that Corrin sees Mikoto in the Conquest finale but not Birthright? It's because in Birthright, despite being your beloved dead mother, she doesn't have a reason to absolve you of any guilt. Conquest even ends with Hinoka and Sakura enthusiastically happy to see you despite you being the cause of both of their brothers dying. That people can still miss this despite playing the game to the end, is utterly baffling.

Bubonic plague. Isn't it wild that people can still contract it in this day and age? The only difference is that it can be treated now. This is very relevant to Three Houses for reasons. I see. I seem to recall Ragnell being a blessed weapon was specifically required. Either way, it's arguably more a matter of happenstance that Ike got Ragnel and that he was selected by Yune to do the killing blow. I think it would be comparable to Hector and Eliwood getting Armads and Durandel, respectively, from Athos which lets them slay the Fire Dragon. The game might force those characters to use those weapons but it's not like they were literally the only people who could. Heck, Armads belonged to the guy who founded the western isles so you can't even argue it a legacy thing. This is a gross simplification of storytelling. Do you mean to tell me that Neo from the Matrix and K from Blade Runner 2049 were approaching the main character from the same direction? Some main characters a genuinely inconsequential to their story like Vaan from Final Fantasy XII. Oh, but it can devalue the worth of the supporting cast. What character arc does any of the supporting cast in Fates go through? It's "Corrin sure is great" or "I should have listened to Corrin sooner". The same can be said of Alm where the supporting cast exist to elevate Alm and/or admit they were wrong for doubting him.

Indeed, I could talk at length about all the ways I think Alm's story is problematic but this isn't the thread for that. I will say that multiple characters admit Alm is straight up better than them, which is credited to some innate quality (hint hint, he's a chosen one and royalty) and Duma can only be defeated by Alm, which makes SoV a very Alm-centric story when it didn't need to be. Don't worry, we're all old men yelling at clouds in this thread. You know, it's not like I think being special is even that bad for a story. In Diablo III, you're a superhuman capable of mowing down waves of demons. In Dragon Age, you're a powerful warrior and the only one capable of putting down a dragon god. In the Legend of Zelda, you're a reincarnation of a hero that is more or less destined to slay the evil threatening Hyrule. What's different about these games is that they're more focused on a lone protagonist (with some help from others) being the savior of a land. These are the stories suited for prophesies and chosen ones. They're about a legendary individual. But Fire Emblem, as I've come to appreciate it, is about teamwork. It's not like an Avatar even has to be flawless and overpraised. I think Robin was well done for the most part and what made them special was more a detriment to them than cause for celebration. I'm concerned for this as well, but I would be interested in playing those remakes, Genealogy in particular.

Eh, I can't say I agree. Certainly, many protagonists aren't punished to the degree Sigurd is, but I think there is more to a Mary Sue than a lack of obvious flaws. A Mary Sue will be explicitly better than everyone around them, either morally or in terms of skill and power. It's not just that they are praise worthy, it's that they couldn't possibly be in the wrong, like Corrin or Alm. Mary Sue isn't a term we should use lightly. Anyway, the crux of my argument is, it's a negative when no one could be the protagonist besides that person because there is something inherit in their being that makes them irreplaceable. Of the things you mentioned for Ike, only the part about him being able to kill Ashera would fit the bill, and that's probably more a matter of him having the weapon for the job rather than something only he could do. If Mia had Ragnel, she could do the same. Fighting the Black Knight is irrelevant to the conclusion of the story and anyone could have saved Elincia.

It's fine to find the comments to the player jarring and unnecessary but I said "non intrusive" to mean that Mark is never used to leech story importance from the other characters. The game is never about him besides being a silent confidant for the team. Character growth and plot developments don't depend on Mark being there.

Naturally, I should start with a disclaimer that we know very little about Three Houses, but I feel we know enough to make educated guesses and have a discussion. Like many people, I have some apprehension about the usage of an avatar in Three Houses. The series began flirting with the idea way back in Blazing Sword where the lords occasionally directed some comments towards Mark but it was mostly tame and non-intrusive. Eliwood, Hector and Lyn remained the power trio and were primarily focused on, with the avatar being little more than an observer. The next instance an avatar was used was Kris in New Mystery, who was widely criticized for poaching lines from established characters and derailing the actual main character so more praise could be directed at the player. Our third avatar was Robin, and while they were also praised and important to the story, I would argue that the attention they get is proportional to the amount they contribute to the party. Fates is where the shit really hit the fan with the story and characters all warping around the black hole that was Corrin. Corrin was always absolved of any wrongdoings, and a character's morality was generally dependent on how much they liked Corrin. This post isn't to talk about player worship specifically, rather the place of a main character. One thing I've really enjoyed about the series is the ensemble cast. My first game was Blazing Sword and even though I was given a token viewpoint 'character', I didn't grow to love the game/series because I got to be this charismatic badass, it's because I loved the relationships between the characters and was invested in their journey. Indeed, the bonds between characters is probably one of the strongest themes persistent throughout the series. The character recruitment song is "Together we ride", to emphasize the journey is a team effort. Together we can challenge our fates, defeat gods, and even return from the dead! So when I look at some of the more modern games, I feel they're losing sight of what makes this series so endearing. Even if they were to scale back from Corrin levels of avatar worship, I don't think Byleth is going to be a healthy addition to the series because this series isn't about chosen ones saving the world through their exclusive super powers. Let me start off my summary of the other protagonists by stating that I know they're usually from privileged backgrounds and sometimes people praise them as paragons for their legendary efforts. For the most part, however, I would describe them as being leaders instead of saviors. I'll start with Blazing Sword. In that game we had three primary lords with a handful of supporting characters. While they were noble of spirit and background, they didn't have special powers and they relied on each other to save the world from the machinations of Nergal. The Sacred Stones primary cast was similarly 'normal', banding together to fight a powerful demon lord. Path of Radiance follows up with an even humbler origin and team focused effort to stop Mad King Ashnard. Awakening is all about only being able to succeed together and despite the leads having important lineages, it's more about their very human efforts. I don't have as much knowledge about the Kaga games, and I'm foggy on Binding Blade, but from what I do understand, they are similar in spirit. The only 'veteran' game that seems to deviate from this pattern is Micaiah who is gifted with many powers. Micaiah becomes a literal savior to the people of Deian, in part because she has powers that aid her in her journey and inspire people to support her cause. This would seemingly put her in the same category as the other protagonists I'm about about to criticize, but she is still quite different. Part 1 of Radiant Dawn does follow a pattern of Micaiah succeeding at everything she does and being loved by all who are sympathetic but things go downhill for her in part 3 and onward. Her nation is put under the control of a foreign power and is still full of hateful bigots, neither of which her powers can help her with. By herself, Micaiah can't be a savior and she needs the support of her comrades to stay on track. So now I'd like to discuss some of the modern games, namely Fates and Shadows of Valentia (I already talked about why Kris was bad). In Fates, Corrin does have a super special lineage but his powers aren't directly responsible for his success (being able to transform into a dragon has zero relevance and every major cast member can use dragon veins). What the story does have in spades however is a protagonist focused story. The major events and character motivations are all tied to you. The two sets of siblings fight over you like a piece of meat, villains plan their days around hating you for no reason and the story itself is about how YOU are the chosen one. Only YOU get the Yato, Only YOU can unite two warring nations and defeat a dragon god. YOU the player will decide the fate of the world, and not even death will stop you, because you're too important to die. It's fate. SoV falls into similar potholes (while being significantly less obnoxious) for Alm's story route. YOU Alm is a chosen one. Only YOU Alm can use the two plot swords needed to slay a god. Only YOU Alm, the son of an emperor, can unite the continent with your his perfect balance of strength and compassion. Sure, other people can help along the way, but all of his comrades will be quick to point out how gosh darn special YOU Alm is. What both of these games do is reduce the team effort to literal chosen ones who are primarily responsible for the success of their stories. Hinoka and Tobin couldn't be the protagonists of their story. They simply aren't special enough, they never could be. This is why I'm wary of Byleth and their "special powers only they have". It's one thing to be in a position of leadership and get all the praise and attention that comes with being the protagonist but it's another matter when you are literally chosen by fate or gods in order for your stories to reach their conclusion. Being absolutely irreplaceable in a story undermines the value of the supporting cast. I'm aware there are elements to the other games that make this discussion more murky, such as holy blood and legendary weapons, but I'll be happy to hear your take on how the stories in the past were structured.

Doesn't his status has a shapershifter leave some room for doubt that red is a normal color for divine dragons? Personally, I'm okay with them making green the hair color of the tribe. What I'd ask for instead is other dragon tribes to show up. Green shouldn't be the color of new dragons unaffiliated with Divine dragons (which may be the case for Three Houses). We really don't need another Tiki expy.

I wanted to roll on the March banner for Lucina/Azura too so I was a little concerned about 'wasting' orbs on Azura now, but considering how low the rates are for individual units in Legendary banners, if you really want her, you'll have a better chance now than later. I'm glad they did a Hector banner not long ago as I knew the Voting Banner units would want DC. I still need more fodder than I have though. Ares, Ayra, H!Myrrh... I should stop showing favoritism to red units.

This event made me realize just how subjective "valuable" units are. There is no universally valued unit nor universally valued skill fodder. I'd rather have Spd Tactics than Steady Stance 4 and I already have Vengeful on my armors that want it. Lyn: I like Lyn as a unit and character and there have been a lot tactics teams I've not been able to build because I couldn't fodder my only Lyn. Azura: A valuable unit for me since I don't have her but fairly useless to anyone who already does. Duma: Def/Res Solo could be interesting but he's conceptually a very boring unit to use. Myrrh: I want her for her character but she's not going to please anyone who doesn't like armor units. Those are my priorities for which characters I want the most. The next person might have very different considerations for which units are the most valuable. If I had to take a guess at the most universally valuable fodder, I'd have to say it's Distant Counter, but disregarding Lyn usurping Hector, Nailah didn't win blue nor did Hrid win Red.

I'm going to refrain from making assumptions about how much the voting bias swung the vote. Azura won by a landslide and she's wasn't in the "starter screen" bunch. Duma was also comfortably ahead of the next colorless. I also won't assume that most people will be pissed about pulling Lyn. Lyn being a mistake is a meme at this point. Again, I get that she wasn't the best pick but I've been hearing all kinds of garbage about her, even saying they'd rather have a reposition fodder or Bartre. Part of the blame is on IS for making a mistake but I think a lot of people have shitty, entitled attitudes. I weep for the state of the community sometimes.

Maybe they know, but it's not like it drove a bunch of nobodies to the top. Duma, Azura and Myrrh were all highly predicted and supported characters. Lyn in the only outlier, and she just barely topped her competition in green. The event was not an enormous failure (at least for the winners selection) it was just a slight anomaly. The lack of a free choice is the real damning element.

You're thinking about it too rationally. Sure, letting people choose a free unit would earn them a lot of good will and keep players more invested in the game. But this is the same company that refused to change how arena scores units so they could sell you a solution with Duel skills.

An apology would be in the form of 5 compensation orbs. Not letting you pick your free unit is part of their money making model.