NekoKnight

I don't see the connection between thinking characters like Heather are okay, but not wanting them to have paired endings with same gender characters. Equal marriage rights for all FE characters I don't know if they are a minority. They are awfully loud, if that's the case. At any rate, yes, it's something they will need to get over.

Radiant Dawn had the powerful occult skills and they were pretty much just guaranteed kills for every class, regardless of their flavor. The main point of contention I have with three tiers is that 2nd tier characters already do enough. The 4 skills they get (without reclassing) is enough. Most classes having access to two weapon types is enough.

That has more to do with the production of 'optimal' children, not their relationship with each other. You shouldn't need to support with anyone to get the skills you want for that individual, is what I'm saying. For the record, I'm not in favor of children being in the next game. The way I see it is the item would be a bonus, not the point of the characterization. Awakening really went overboard on the item acquisition... The rewards should be something genuinely rare.

Kent's other paired endings are explicitly romantic, so it seems to imply that his relationship with Farina was more professional, from his end. In their supports, Farina crushes on him hard but doesn't show such feelings to her. Admittedly, I live in a hetero-normative society, so I'm more inclined to believe people are straight until indicated otherwise.

A paired ending doesn't necessitate or imply romantic involvement unless stated. Raven and Lucius' supports are just about Lucius helping Raven get over his anger and Raven admitting that Lucius is the only person he has left that he considers family (for reasons unknown, he distances himself from Priscilla). Their ending just states that they went on to be mercenaries together. To everyone else, male and female, Raven is extremely antisocial. The only non-heterosexual people that have a solid canon basis is Heather and Legault. Thievery makes you turn gay. Everything else is subtext and people interpreting characters how they want to. It's a combination of Ike being a chaste hero, not showing any interest in the many women who take a liking to him, and that he and Soren have a few tender moments. Ike also only has paired ending with guys, but like I said above, that doesn't need to imply romance. I think people are quick to categorize characters by their sexuality.

My humble opinion is that the more supports you have, the more diluted the quality of each one. I think the GBA titles did it best with characters having 3 or less (with some exceptions ) romance options. Of course this just comes down to a question of "Do you want Fire Emblem to have a love simulator as a core element?" and my answer to that is, to quote Professor Oak, "There's a time and place for everything, but not now!" I think such a feature belongs in legitimate role playing games, not a story-focused, strategy 'rpg'.

The game engine is the same but we don't know anything about the matter of supports or children yet. Awakening had a lot of shoe-horned romance to get the kids, so without a second generation, we may be getting more traditionally developed relationships, romantic or otherwise. Yes.... YES! All of your post but especially the bolded. I'd like to see Kamui as more of a customizable Lord (looks and personality) instead of a character meant to be projected on.

10 characters out of 73 playable ones. And of those characters, most were horribly under-leveled and outclassed by the time you could use them again. I'm not saying a 3 tiered system would be impossible to work, just that Radiant Dawn isn't a great example.

Bingo. The solution for armor knights is the same as archers. Create maps where they are useful (Defend maps for example) or enemy unit compositions that favor them (maps with a lot of fast but low damage enemies).

This is what OP said. They didn't say all, but most is still the majority. I said "all" merely as hyperbole. I don't think characters should be able to romance the majority of the opposite sex characters because that's not how people work. Most people aren't even going to be be friends with the majority of people they meet, let alone romantic partners. No they do not, but you'd need a way to separate the platonic developments from the romantic ones. So you say "That's what S supports are for" but I disagree for two reasons. 1. Why should romantic relationships be ranked higher than platonic ones? If two people become like family to one another, is that not equal to the strength of a romantic bond? Love is love. 2. Relationships suddenly becoming romantic at S-rank with no indication beforehand was widely criticized for Awakening supports, and rightfully so.

I think the poll options are worded ambiguously. I assumed you meant Awakening style eugenics romancing but the way you worded the options, it could also refer to people having canon relationships (Pent/Louise). At any rate, I voted no on everything except endgame. Having anyone be able to date/marry anyone just lowers support quality so we have "I made you a pie" "Okay, let's get married" conversations. Furthermore, it just simplifies things down to "Everyone wants to get married and have children! Platonic relationship, what's that?" I certainly don't think it should be up to the player to decide the characters' (besides the avatar's) sexuality, or have the "everyone is bi" set up of Dragon Age 2. This comes with it's own problems. 1. It assumes that just because two people are gender compatible, they want to be in a romantic relationship, 2. What if I want my character to be a heterosexual male but have him bro it up with a gay or bisexual man? How would the game differentiate between platonic and romantic interest from the player unless you had a complicated, choice-based romance system (which is already straying away from what FE is about)?

This is something that confuses me, Radiant Dawn was practically speaking a 2 tier system, so what game are people speaking of so highly that contains a 3 tier system?

I don't think people would enjoy that because it would force you to support 2 people just to get the skill set you want. What support bonuses you want to get and skills you want to get are separate strategy elements.

Here's a new idea, what if some units gave each other items after reaching a certain support rank? Two mages are helping each other with research and discover some Spirit Dust. A senior Swordmaster rewards his student's hard work with a rare sword. Stuff like that.

Topazd answers your post. I don't think that would be hard to code into the game. As for the amount of skill to beat hardcore mode, it would require more careful planning and deciding how to proceed if people are killed. Some of it will be luck, but a lot of it will be knowledge and understanding what are acceptable risks to take. Can anyone here relate to how much they enjoyed a 'ironman' run? I've never tried because I never let anyone die.

My idea for it would be that the game autosaves after each action and you can't restart the mission, only continue where you left off. Some people would be miffed that additional content must be paid for with real money and can't be obtained in the game under any circumstance. Personally, I think additional rewards earned through player skill are always going to be more valid than ones gained by player wallet.

Even for the games with Zelda as a significant character are more about Link. The series should have been called 'The Legend of Hyrule' and Majora's Mask would be "The Legend of Hyrule: This time not in Hyrule: Majora's Mask" :P

What kind of heartless monster doesn't reset after a character death? :0 For the second bolded part, that would be an issue with classes being imbalanced, unrelated to why reclassing is a necessary element.

Your idea behind limiting the effectiveness of skills when not used on their native class is intriguing. Your suggestion would be a step in the right direction but another reason I'm opposed to reclassing is that I feel it detracts from the distinctiveness of the characters themselves. What's so special about your wyvern rider when several characters can class change into it anyway? I don't have a problem with this, as long as they can't be purchased in the main game, They could make it so your level doesn't reset after reclassing.

We don't "need" one but the series title is pretty abstract without it, no? I hope the Fire Emblem in FE14 (if there is one) is not just tacked on like Blazing Sword or Sacred Stones. The dancer girl might be holding it....whatever it is.

Well I don't think the mode should be too punishing. The rewards are to incentivize a mode that is more challenging, not to give a bragging rights trophy to the highest tier of player. Speedruns and Lunatic+ are for the latter kind of player. It's true that one can do this as a self imposed challenge already, but currently there is no reward for doing so. Wouldn't it be neat if exclusive classes like Dread Fighter and Bride, and exclusive skills like Shadowgift, Conquest and Iote's Shield (made into Tellius style scrolls) were made available to those willing to put in the extra effort?

How would people feel about a Hardcore mode (no mission reset) which let's you unlock additional content for all play-throughs? It could unlock new items, new classes and new skills. I feel like those things should be unlockable through playing well and not DLC.

That is the primary concern I'd like to see addressed in the next game. Yes, building your own units is fun but 1. They get too strong for the main game and 2. some classes are obsolete after getting their skills. I'd rather have distinct skills and classes than endless reclassing. If reclassing were limited before the post-game, or New Game+, I feel this would be the most balanced and interesting.

This is the story I'm imagining. Monsters spend most of their time fighting amongst each other and only occasionally venture into human territory to clash with humans. The humans do their best to repel the monsters but many lives are lost. It's made worse for the humans when they discover that monsters are effectively immortal through reincarnation. To combat this, humans develop special magic and "divine" weapons capable of killing monsters for good and start pressing into monster territory to wipe them out. Later in the story, the player discovers that because the monsters didn't have a concept of death, they didn't have any moral qualms with attacking human settlements and considered their conflict all in good sport...until humans developed their new weapons. Monsters are unable to reproduce so every time one is killed, the population will be permanently reduced. The monsters now faced with a threat that could wipe out their entire race reorganize their efforts to wipe out humanity and a full scale war breaks out. Both sides consider the other to be a great evil over a misunderstanding of the value of life. I kind of like the duality of monsters and humans because while monsters are immortal due to reincarnation, humanity as a whole is in a sense immortal because they can reproduce. Perhaps some of the less axe-crazy monsters who are capable of human speech (I always liked fiction where the dragons are hyper intelligent and interested in arcane knowledge) are recruit-able into your army and they shed light on the war through their own perspective.

One thing they could do is use S rank to mark paired endings, whether they are romantic in nature or not.