vanguard333

I'm not sure for games I haven't played. But I can say these for the games I have played: PoR: Ike. He's my favourite FE character and I would not change one bit of his development in the storyline. Path of Radiance is my favourite game so there is quite a bit I would not change. But this is probably the one I would not change even if it meant every other part of the plot had to be changed. RD: ...Skimir getting beaten to a pulp by Zelgius; I guess. It was a moment of sheer "pride comes before the fall." I'm sure this is not the best plot point of Radiant Dawn, but this is just what came to mind after a few minutes of thinking... Shadow Dragon: There is not much plot there to begin, so it's hard to say what I most would not change. ...Marth's development was decent I guess? Awakening: Chrom revealing why Plegia hates Ylisse? It was a decent bit of worldbuilding I guess... Fates; Birthright: The scene that reveals that most of the people in Nohr's capital do their daily commute underground and that Nohr lacks good farmland. Garon transforming into a Dusk Dragon was pretty cool as well (a bit wasted but still cool). Fates; Conquest: Takumi's gradual possession, while not really surprising, was interesting in how it was used. My only problem with it was that the final boss was an archer with a fancy bow and... that's it. Takumi is of Dawn Dragon blood, and we see possessed Garon transform in Birthright. Why not a transformation into a corrupted dawn dragon form, only for possessed Takumi to say something like, "This vessel's blood is too weak to maintain this form for long... But I will destroy you in the time I do have!" Other than that, though, it was interesting to use a Hoshidan royal as the surprise final boss. Fates; Revelation: The rainbow sage revealing that he forged the Yato; thus bringing humanity into the war between the First Dragons, as has spent his life since hoping for some way to atone for doing so. That was a bit of good backstory into the first dragons and how humans became involved. I just wish it had been used better in the story (though; then again, I wish every part of Fates' story was either used better or replaced with something better).

It is in March. I made a typo. I have changed it now. Also: You can vote for more than one item!

Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild comes out in March. They have already shown that items such as the bow, paraglider (which is basically the sail) and the fire rod will be returning. Of all the items from the Legend of Zelda series, what do you want to see return? Here is a list of some of the items that were not shown: Slingshot Hookshot/Clawshot Magic Armor Hammer Ball and Chain Strength-increasing items (silver/golden gauntlets, etc.) Mirror Shield Boomerang Bombchu Deku nuts Spinner I'm sure I have missed quite a few. If enough people (at least two) mention an item that is not on the list and they want it in Breath of the Wild, then I'll add it.

Gen 1: + It started the franchise in the first place. - The psychic types were quite overpowered for the most part Gen 3: + Rayquaza. One of my favourite legendary pokemon. - The invisible Kecleon were quite annoying. Gen 4: + My favourite of the pokemon league champions; especially when one considers that she, unlike the others, was actually involved in the story. - I disliked the mechanic where Cresselia and one of the lake legendaries (Mespirit I think its name was) kept fleeing making trying to catch them just annoying. Gen 6: + Honedge. I always wanted there to be a pokemon that was either a swordsman or a sword (Gallade doesn't count in this case as I mean an actual metal sword). - Not a lot of new pokemon I found particularly interesting. A lot of them were gen 5 pokemon (and one can guess from gen 5 not being on my list that I never played gen 5).

I think having set personalities would be a great idea. One idea I had would be, to prevent "I don't want to play any of these personalities," keep the personalities simple. Another idea I have is to have a character traits tree sort of like the asset/flaw system but not affecting stats. It would sort of work like this: (Not necessarily the categories I would use, nor the amount of categories I would use): Upbringing: poor (farmers and such), middle (knights and such), noble (do I need to clarify?) Quality(s): kind, honest, daring, careful, altruistic (selfless), strong-willed, smart Fault(s): inconsiderate, dishonest, cowardly, reckless, selfish, easily-swayed, scatterbrained You could choose one of the three upbringings, one (or two) qualities and one or two flaws. You cannot pick contradictory qualities/faults (example: you can choose careful and cowardly, but you cannot choose kind and inconsiderate or altruistic and selfish). This is just one way it could be done. It would affect one's support conversations and some dialogue.

Oscar and Kieran. It was a different take on the archetype in my opinion; with Kieran considering Oscar his "archrival", meanwhile Oscar couldn't care less. Plus, in Path of Radiance at least, they were both pretty good units.

Either mercenary/hero, priest or paladin. If a priest, then one that can use light magic. I really like swords, but I also really like light magic. I would probably be a hero and I would probably use a light brand or a (Path of Radiance; so light not dark) runesword so I in a way would still have light magic. Affinity: I have no idea. Are they based on personality? Birthday? How does it work? Critical Quotes: "I hope this works; considering the alternative." Defeat Quote: "I guess I wasn't as good as I hoped to be..."

I myself have not really had a problem with the Armourslayer gameplay-wise (though I do agree that there could be better ways to implement it). Really my problem has been their aesthetics. I always found the idea of using a massive sword to combat armour a little... silly (for lack of a better adjective). One idea I have for a different style of armourslayer is this: In the actual middle ages, one technique that was used to combat plate armour was to hold the sword by the blade and strike with the guard or pommel to deliver blunt force onto the opponent. It was called a "Mordhau". Ever since I found out about this, I thought it would be really cool if the armourslayer was a sword used in this way.

Mario Kart; ever since the Nintendo 64 version.

I can easily see Septimus from Radiant Dawn getting along with Wimpod...

I think enough people have played conquest by now for me to safely say that Muk fits King Garon perfectly...

cavalier: It is a close call between Oscar and Silas, but I ultimately chose Oscar. mercenary: Ogma. Not even close. Only Ike (who isn't really a mercenary (even though he is a mercenary) but is similar enough) really reflects the sheer "good from the start, unstoppable by the end" that Ogma started for balanced sword users. myrmidon: Edward. I used him in Radiant Dawn and, while it was hard to train him early on (it's hard to train any low-level unit in the Dawn Brigade!), he was one of my best beorc units by the end, and I usually am not a fan of myrmidons. axe fighter: Barst is similar to Ogma (but with axes), but I ultimately chose Boyd. knight: Gatrie. Not much gets more hilarious then enemy units charging at Gatrie in Path of Radiance only to do no damage to him at all.

1. No, it was not a horrible movie. And even if it was (which it wasn't), it was certainly far better than any other video game movie (though I'll admit that the bar is set very, very low in that regard). Unlike any other video game movie, the creators actually put some real effort into it and worked closely with the people who made the movie. The directing was good, the script was pretty decent, and certain scenes that I can't mention without spoilers were truly surprising and great to watch. It stayed relatively true to the source material while also being its own story. Also, the fact that it was cut does matter. For example: 30 minutes were cut from Batman V Superman, and ask anyone, regardless of whether or not they liked the movie, and they'll say the director's cut was significantly better than the theatrical version. 2. I will gladly admit (in fact I already did admit) that some of the actors who played human characters weren't that good. Fortunately (spoiler; do not read what's in these brackets if you haven't seen the movie: all the bad actors were killed off in this movie and as such won't be in a sequel), and to say all actors on the human side were bad just because of a few is nonsense. Anduin Lothar was good, as were the two mages. A couple bad actors does not a bad movie or show make. People love Star Trek the Original Series even though Shatner is infamous for, among other things, overacting way too much. 3. I already mentioned the effects of the magic, and they were actually among the better displays of magic in a movie. The golem was not bad (I personally would've preferred one of those stone & fell burning legion monsters, but that's not a criticism of the graphics). How were the grand battles bad, and, if they were, isn't that a choreography problem, not a CGI one? Did you see the detail on the Orcs, the effects of the magic, and especially the griffin? The CGI was not just good, it was super good. 4. Hm... Let's see: Durotan and his wife; a significant story particularly revolving around their child Go'el/Thrall that is repeatedly focused on. The friendship between Durotan and Orgrimm Doomhammer; not as significant, but again frequently mentioned and shown and significantly affected a particular scene. The friendship between Khadgar and Anduin Lothar; slowly developed throughout the movie and frequently shown throughout the story. The friendship between Anduin and Medivh; mentioned when Anduin visits Medivh, and assisted the story (spoiler: it made Anduin shocked when Medivh didn't lift the spell so Anduin could save his son during the ambush. Khadgar had warned Anduin prior, but it wasn't until that moment that Anduin began to suspect something was wrong with Medivh, largely thanks to that friendship). Let's see... any more... oh yes, the not-exactly-friendship between Anduin and his brother-in-law the King of Stormwind. (Spoiler: the fact that Anduin knew the king personally was not necessarily important, but it did make him all the more saddened by the king's death). Lothar x Garona; this one did feel forced and I do wish they had they kept it as a surprising friendship, and, while it was just that, it was alright, and it wasn't "mentioned for a brief or two before everything is over." Lothar and his son; they maybe could have done a bit more, but his son wasn't exactly a major character, and it was mentioned and shown more than once, and played significantly towards certain moments. Any else... Well, there was that brief scene between the Queen and Garona, but that actually was okay. It gave Garona the knife, for one thing, and it was an act of kindness towards a captured prisoner. It wasn't really a relationship. So yes I counted just now, and almost of them are significant and appear more than once. 5. The plot was good. But I am not going to go in-depth into that again because I went quite in-depth last time. I will just say that one of the most important things to me in a movie is a good plot and good characters, and Warcraft had both (in fact it had a lot more plot than quite a few action movies). 6. Yes I will admit my statement could have been worded a little better. Perhaps, "Besides, regardless of what each of us thinks of Warcraft, this thread isn't about Warcraft, but the Monster Hunter film, so let's talk about that instead" would have been a little better. Yes, I understand that you were simply replying. I guess I'm a little too used to trolls on other forums. I apologize.

Addressing this to Magical CC: Are you a troll, just looking for an argument, or one of the critics I mentioned? I know the answer is probably neither of those things, but the fact is Warcraft was not a bad movie at all. 1. I mentioned that it wasn't perfect (mostly thanks to Universal making stupid decisions like cutting forty minutes (and, yes, that was Univeral's fault; as was the less-than-good marketing) that would have gone towards those very sub-plots you just mentioned). But overall it was a good movie. 2. The acting was largely good. The actor who played Anduin Lothar was good, the actors who played young Khadgar and Medivh were both good. The actors who played the Orcs were pretty darn good (especially Durotan and Gul'dan). The only not-so-good ones I can remember are the King and Lothar's son. 3. The CGI was not bad!!!!! The CGI was incredibly detailed, the magic spells were excellently done, and just look at the orcs! You could see body hairs and battle scars; it was that detailed. The CGI was excellent. I would almost say comparable to Avatar; actually, I'll be bold and say it was comparable to Avatar. 4. I will concede that the Lothar x Garona romance was forced. But, other than that, the relationships were good and benefitted the story. Friendships such as that between Durotan and Orgrimm, and that between Lothar and Khadgar really helped the story. 5. The story was good. The fact that the story is not over is not one bit a bad thing, and there was enough plot that one could keep up with most of it even if they had never even heard of the games. Yes, there could have been more worldbuilding (most of it was in those 40 minutes Universal cut), but there was enough left to know what was going on. Furthermore, One could quickly understand the characters and their motivations, and certain scenes that I'm not going to mention in case of spoilers, were truly saddening to watch. The story was not perfect, but it was pretty darn good, and can be expected to only get better now that Universal''s no longer part of it. And no, Blizzard's sticking with Legendary because Universal sucked and gave the film no chances at all. Finally, I would like to point out that I am not an "oldie cursed by nostalgia" or a "WoW/Hearthstone fanboy." I have played WoW, but not that much (I stopped playing about a month before I started University), and, honestly, while I did know a fair bit of the plot, I went in with zero expectations, knowing it could have been good, just another video game movie, or anywhere in between, and I was not disappointed (and I prefer when movies have lots of plot). So yeah, in both my and many other people's opinion, Warcraft was a good movie. Yes, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But to say only "oldies cursed by nostalgia" or "WoW/Hearthstone fanboys" liked the movie is just plain wrong. EDIT: Besides, this thread isn't about the Warcraft movie, but the upcoming Monster Hunter movie. I only mentioned it to point out that at least one good video game movie does exist.

The Warcraft movie was good (it broke the metaphorical curse on all video game movies), and the Assasin's Creed movie looks like it might be good, so I wouldn't be so quick to say that a Monster Hunter movie would suck. That being said, the makers of Warcraft worked closely with Blizzard (and half the people who made it were fans of the games), and Assasin's Creed is being made by Ubisoft's own motion pictures division, so they knew/know what they're doing, and Warcraft is really an exception to the rule. By the way, to the person who posted above, Warcraft was only critically panned in North America, and even then, never has there been such a great divide between critic reviews and movie reviews as was the case with Warcraft. Most critic reviews were, "This is a video game movie; therefore it is a bad movie. (not an actual quote)" They were just laughable and obviously biased against the movie. I saw Warcraft in the theatres with as few expectations as possible, and, it wasn't perfect (Universal Studios cut 40 minutes out of the film), but it was pretty darn good. I have not seen or even heard of Kingsglaive, so there's nothing I can say about that, but I can say Warcraft is a good film despite Universal studios, and there is a reason Blizzard has stated that, if they make a sequel, they will keep working with Legendary but not Universal.

Fates does have the kodachi. I just didn't use it as an example (mainly because I haven't played Fates in a while and I forgot the Kodachi). Thanks for reminding me.

I have read a lot of great ideas so I am not going to repeat all of them. I would really like the next FE game to be on the NX since we have not had a console FE game since Radiant Dawn, and we already have had two games for the DS and two/three games for the 3DS (depending on whether one considers the different versions of Fates as one game or two). I also agree they should bring back the artist who did the artwork for Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn. Finally, I agree they should bring back light magic and halberdiers! A couple smaller ideas I had for the next FE game: - Instead of the armorslayer being a huge sword that looks like the sword Darknuts use in Twilight Princess, instead have it be a sword that the unit holds by the blade and strikes with the guard/pommel. There is a genuine technique in medieval swordsmanship (Google "mordhau stroke" or search "half-swording" on Youtube) where, for use against plate armour, one grabs the sword by the blade and strikes with the guard or pommel of the sword. It's something I thought would be really cool to see in a Fire Emblem game. - 1-2 range swords that aren't magic. Funny enough, throwing a sword straight and overhand (like Amatsu and Ragnell in Awakening) is a genuine technique that I think would be cool to continue to see used for a sword version of a javelin/hand axe.

Path of Radiance: the big yellow arrow indicating which tile is currently selected. It really does obstruct the map sometimes. What was wrong with just highlighting the corners of the selected tile?

Personally, I tend to prefer humans, if only because they tend to be better written villains (with a few exceptions... then again, those exceptions were possessed by monsters...) The first monster villain was Medeus, the shadow dragon. He is clearly evil and trying to take over the world and seems rather one-dimensional in FE1 and Shadow Dragon (but then again, almost everything seemed one-dimensional in those games, so...). But then in the sequel you find out that he was the only Earth Dragon that decided to become a Manakete and not go nuts, and at first he was on Naga's side. But then he saw how much humanity treated his fellow Manaketes very poorly and formed the Dohlr Empire, which was originally a haven for Manaketes, but then became a means of revenge against humanity. That, in my opinion, is a potentially good monster villain. He's clearly evil, but he has a good backstory and clear motivation. Sadly, pretty much every monster villain after that has been, "Muahaha, I will destroy the world!" Don't get me wrong, not all villains need a backstory to be good (Ganondorf is a good non-FE example of this), but every post-Gharnef monster villain has just been a rehash of the one-dimensional monster formula. The human final bosses, on the other hand, tend to be better written. Ashera was somewhat interesting and at least a departure from the mindless monsters. Ashnard was evil; no question. But he was also an ideologist; in this case, a radical social Darwinist who believed in deciding rulers by strength, not blood. Not only did this improve his character, but the ideology he was enforcing was relevant and intertwined with the rest of the story of Path of Radiance very well. Done right, both are interesting, but humans are done right more often.

I once had a discussion with some friends about what pokemon types the (non-pokemon) characters in Smash Bros 4 would have. We never actually discussed the DLC characters, nor did we actually complete the list, but this is some of what we decided: Peach: Normal/Fairy Yoshi: Normal/Dragon Bowser: Fire/Dragon Donkey Kong: Fighting Link: Steel/Fairy Zelda: Psychic/Fairy Pit: Normal/Flying Dark Pit: Dark/Flying Palutena: Fairy Marth: Steel Ike: Steel/Fire Lucina: Steel Robin: Steel/Psychic Ness: Normal/Psychic Captain Falcon: Fighting Little Mac: Fighting Megaman: Steel Kirby: Normal We had decided on pokemon types for Fox, Falco, Mr. Game & Watch, Meta Knight, King Dedede, and others. But I can't remember what they were. Interestingly enough, we never agreed on whether Mario and Luigi should be normal/fire or fighting/fire.

With all the upcoming 7th generation pokemon and Alola versions of classic pokemon, I have a few more ideas: Felicia and/or Flora - the new ice-type versions of either Ninetales or Sandslash. Septimus - Wimpod "The beasts... the beasts wish to... CONSUME me!" Haar - Komala. Olivia - either Lurantis or Oricorio.

Edward from Radiant Dawn is the best.

Most likely Ike from Path of Radiance/Radiant Dawn. We both struggle sometimes with communication and neither of us would ever dream of being part of the upper class. I also hope to learn actual swordsmanship someday.

Regarding the question above that Dinar87 posted: how do you make polls? I wondered that for quite some time. It's the reason I didn't make this poll until today. When you make a topic, there is a very small thing near the top-right, just above Post Options, that says: manage topic poll. Click on that and you can make a poll. Also, just my opinion: Wii U unless they're going to stop making Wii U games when the NX launches. If that is the case, then NX. We have had two FE games for the 3DS already.

In your opinion, should the next Fire Emblem game be for the 3DS, Wii U, or the NX? We have had two Fire Emblem games for the 3DS and none for the Wii U (apart from the crossover game). So, with the NX coming in 2017, I was wondering what people want the next Fire Emblem game to be for; the 3DS, Wii U, or NX.