vanguard333

It was probably for mages to have an easier time fighting other mages. It makes sense in theory, but in practice, you may as well either use a spell or send another unit.

I've never thought too much about the "where did they go after this" parts of the epilogue, but I actually really liked that in Path of Radiance simply because it was the characters acknowledging their journey and what they plan to do. Plus, it made a lot of sense that Ike would ask everyone what they plan to do now that the Mad King's War is over. Interestingly, if I recall correctly, Radiant Dawn did something of a mix between the two: it used the epilogue slideshow, but with conversations between certain characters in between some of the slides. I liked that as well because it was probably a better way to handle the huge cast than either just the slides or just the conversations, and it allowed for different, "What will you do now" conversations to happen in different places, unlike Path of Radiance. So, I guess what I'm saying is that it all depends on the game for me, but I would like to see Fire Emblem bring back epilogue scenes of characters discussing their immediate plans for the future.

My thoughts on Micaiah: she's an interesting character with a lot of potential, and I think the story managed to utilize somewhere around seven tenths (7/10) of that potential before overshadowing her in favour of other characters. Right away, one thing I really like is her dynamic with Sothe. She's the one that Sothe spent all of Path of Radiance looking for, and right away, it shows. I think that their tension whenever Sothe brings up Ike is great and makes a lot of sense: Sothe was there fighting alongside Ike and being inspired by him; he's seen firsthand that the Conquest of Daein and the Begnion Occupation were not Ike's fault, whereas Micaiah hasn't had that experience to learn who Ike really is and she doesn't have that perspective, so to her, Sothe fanboying about Ike is him fanboying about the guy that led an invasion of their homeland (a counter-invasion after Daein invaded Crimea, but an invasion nonetheless). I also like how, when she does finally meet Ike in part 4, she sees why Sothe is so inspired by Ike. Plus, her thoughts on Ike in part 1 led to what is possibly the funniest bit of banter in all of Fire Emblem: Sothe: “Entering Gallia by yourselves would be nearly impossible. The man you need to get you into Gallia actually resides in Crimea. That man, Ike, is in contact with King Caineghis and his advisors. There’s no doubt in my mind that he’s the man you need.” Micaiah: “Right. Lord Ike, hero of the Crimean Liberation, leader of the Greil Mercenaries, and father of Sothe’s children…” I also like how there's a mystery behind the origin of her special (inevitably-royal) chosen one powers; a mystery that the story answers with the reveal that she was Sanaki's branded older sister, and I like how she's unique among FE lords in being a light mage and a healer. In terms of how much I felt she got overshadowed, I'll just quote myself from another topic:

Interesting. I've never really had any problem ORKOing that dark mage to my recollection, but it has been quite some time so I could easily be misremembering, and, as I said, I haven't played Maddening; only normal and hard.

Interesting. As I said, I have yet to actually try a gauntlet Byleth since I usually just have him use swords. My thought with Byleth was that, since he can have grounder and bane of monsters as combat arts and his proficiency in swords also lends well to giving him a forged rapier, he can counter pretty much everything that can be countered. I might have to try a gauntlet Byleth one of these days for one of my playthroughs. Yeah; it is better than mortal savant. Byleth's spell list isn't good, so you wouldn't want him using offensive spells anyway. In that case, terrain resistance is a much better class ability for Byleth than black tomefaire, even if terrain resistance is extremely situational. Sacred power does tend to come up a fair bit in my playthroughs since my Byleth is never on his own; he's always near other units, and I usually give him a 1-3 range forged Levin Sword, so linked attacks and gambit boosts happen a lot. So it has been rather neat in that regard. Yeah; I agree with this as well. The only kinds of hybrids I see as useful are the ones where, rather than trying to have both physical offense and magical offense, they instead use one form of offense and then the other provides some form of utility. That, and/or I just give them one of the magic weapons for the 1-3 range. I have yet to use Sylvain so I can't vouch for having him be able to use physic, and while I have used Bernadetta, I've never even considered using her for rescue. I mainly use her because she's a great archer, and there isn't a class that can use magic that is also good for bows. I can see that argument that hybrids would be useful for if you approach a map by splitting up units, but in my experience, I have approached maps by splitting up my units a lot, and I haven't really experienced a need for a proper hybrid unit. I've usually divided my army so that units with different specialties stay close together, and when I haven't, it's usually for a reason, like I'm sending all my flying units somewhere only they can get to or something like that. I've never experienced a moment where I'm thinking, "If only I could've sent a magical unit this way" or anything like that.

I feel that hybrid units work best when one thing is their main offense (be it physical or magic) and the other is for utility. For an example of what I mean, I usually make my Byleth go into the Enlightened One class, and I actually prefer to have my Byleth learn white magic rather than gauntlets. Byleth's white magic pool is nothing special at all, but the cool thing is having a front-line unit that's also able to heal others. Taking this further, even though my Byleth usually has a worse magic stat than physical stat, I still find it worth it to give him a Levin Sword+ for 1-3 range. This means I can invest Byleth entirely in physical-oriented skills while getting some extra utility out of his magic. This is the kind of hybrid build I can see as useful: the unit mainly focuses on one, but the other is able to supplement them or provide extra utility rather than divide their focus.

My first Fire Emblem game was Super Smash Bros. Melee Path of Radiance. I first learned about the series through Super Smash Bros. Melee, though my siblings and I had no idea that the series existed outside Japan by that point because the trophies for Marth and Roy said, "Japan Only". We found out about the series being released outside of Japan when we saw Eliwood's game in this little booklet that was advertising a bunch of different GBA games, but we didn't buy it. Then my family and I saw Path of Radiance at the store, and we decided to try it. It ended up becoming my favourite video game at the time, and it's still my favourite video game to this day. Same, though I still have yet to play Eliwood's game, Sacred Stones, or any of the games that were Japan-only.

Here's the list of FE games I have played: Path of Radiance Radiant Dawn Shadow Dragon Awakening Fates: Birthright Fates: Conquest Fates: Revelation Shadows of Valentia Three Houses: Crimson Flower Three Houses: Verdant Wind I have finished all of these except for the Verdant Wind route of Three Houses, though I am currently near the end of it. After I finish it, I then plan to play through Azure Moon, then Silver Snow.

Cool; it's good to hear about people playing this game and enjoying it. The characters being great is honestly one of the most common things people point to for why this game is good. I'm not surprised by your top 5 characters; they're all good characters. I guess I'm only really surprised by Ike being below Boyd on the list. Yeah; the base mechanics were definitely great. It was something I really missed when playing the 3DS Fire Emblem games, and while Three Houses lets the player actually explore the base as an actual location, it's always the same base, and it doesn't allow for the wide variety of base conversations that Path of Radiance has. Stuff like Ike asking merchants how they feel about Daein's invasion, eavesdropping on Boyd convincing Oscar and Rolf to help him come up with a new technique, and of course, Ike frantically hiding under Soren's desk in an attempt to avoid Aimee are moments you can't really get with the monastery in Three Houses because everyone's just standing around in one building. I have to ask:

Did you mean 3? I counted, and the first picture from Cars is the third picture. By the way, just for confirmation, were the two answers that I gave correct?

Is it weird that I read the title and thought it would be about the most memorable thing that led to the game over, rather than the most memorable game over screen itself? I'm honestly not sure what the most memorable game over screen was for me; I remember certain ones very well for some haunting imagery or music, but I can't remember which games had those particular game over screens. The only one off the top of my head that I can actually identify is the one for Path of Radiance, and I wouldn't consider it the most memorable except in terms of actually being able to remember which game it was for.

I think it would be cool to have a Fire Emblem Three Houses collaboration. I could see multiple things for this: The Hero's Relics and Saint Relics as weapons in Rise. For example, Seiros' sword & shield and the Sword of Moralta & Aegis as sword & shield, the Ochain Shield & Spear of Assal as lance, and Amyr as either a hammer or a switch axe. Not sure about what weapon type the sword of the creator could be though; charge blade, maybe? Edelgard's Armored lord outfit, Dimitri's High lord outfit, and Claude's Wyvern master outfit as armor sets, plus various other outfits (student outfit, Rhea's outfit, etc.) as layered armour. Quests that allude to certain chapters and monsters from Three Houses. For instance, hunting a recoloured Rathian (that uses ice element instead of fire) as a reference to the Immaculate One, etc. Another that I could see is another The Legend of Zelda collaboration. This one could go both ways, with wirebugs becoming a Shiekah Slate rune in BOTW2 or something like that. But I would mainly just want Link's outfit and the Master Sword so that I can pretend that I'm playing a Zelda game and that Link's gone back to being left-handed. EDIT: In light of events that happened earlier this month that I was recently made aware of, I think it would be interesting to see a Berserk collaboration done in memory of the manga's author. I think have Guts' dragonslayer as a greatsword would probably be a great way to do it, as well as maybe a bonus quest that acknowledges the memory of the manga author.

Rather ironic, considering that, if we go by the main definition of a prequel, something like Age of Calamity doesn't count as a prequel for the same reason that something like the Star Trek reboot films aren't prequels: alternate timeline. Uh, what? Yeah; it's not the same Link in all games, but that doesn't make the idea that the particular style of hat started as a tribute/nod to Ezlo a bad one. Also, I mentioned that the game also showed the origin of the Four Sword and Vaati; would that qualify it, in your definition, as a prequel to the Four Swords games? Okay, but what about something like a game that showed something that was originally backstory (like the film Rogue One showed the theft of the Death Star plans)? Would that be a cheat or a prequel? Or what about an origin story for an important plot device?

The sixth character (the cartoon dragon) is Draggadon from Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. The fourth character (the centipede-like thing with a crystal shell) is the first boss in Pikmin 3. I have no idea about the rest.

Just want to make sure I understand what you're saying; how much does the game have to relate to the story and characters of a previous game to be considered a prequel for you? For instance, would A Link to the Past having the origin of Ganon in its backstory be enough to make it a prequel to the first two games for you, or would you consider its connections to the first two games to be too few and too tenuous? Would Minish Cap being the origin of the Four Sword, Vaati, and Link's hat (until Skyward Sword retconned that by having its Link wear the hat) make it a prequel in your eyes? Basically, if a prequel game is, for instance, set a lot further back and revolves around entirely different characters, how much connection does it need to have to be a prequel by your definition?

Your list of prequel games is larger than mine: the only one I've played is Shadow of the Colossus, which is a prequel to Ico, and I've never even played Ico; I played Shadow of the Colossus because of everyone saying it's a classic, a masterpiece and a gameplay-narrative experience unlike anything else (they turned out to be absolutely right). Funny enough, originally, Ocarina of Time was a prequel: it was made to be a prequel to A Link to the Past that showed the player the Imprisoning War. There are a lot of discrepancies with that (Ganondorf not obtaining the full Triforce, A Link to the Past saying that Knights of Hyrule fought alongside the sages to seal Ganon away but Ocarina of Time having Link be one guy and not a knight, etc.) but a lot of them can be surprisingly-well handwaved with the Imprisoning War in A Link to the Past being a tale that's been passed down. Then Majora's Mask and Wind Waker came along and made it downright impossible (rather than possible with a ton of handwaving) for A Link to the Past to follow from Ocarina of Time. Speaking of A Link to the Past, A Link to the Past was made to be (and canonically still is) a distant prequel to the first two Zelda games, so there is at least one Zelda prequel if you count distant prequels. I agree. I will just point out for the sake of clarity that, as I said at the start of the thread, Age of Calamity taking place in an alternate timeline rather than actually preceding Breath of the Wild means that it is not a prequel by definition.

Before we begin: for the sake of clarity, a story set in an alternate timeline, or that tries to reboot the franchise rather than precede it, does not count as a prequel, so, for example, something like the Star Trek reboot films do not count as prequels. It is a common claim that prequel stories have a strong tendency to not be very good, whether it's prequel books, prequel shows or prequel films. Common reasons cited include that it's harder (though not impossible) to write a compelling story where the author knows that the expected audience knows the outcome, or that they often rely too heavily on the source material rather than tell their own story (a similar complaint often lobbied at sequels). However, there are not many examples of prequel video games, and I cannot really find a consensus or common arguments about them specifically. So, I was wondering, what do you think of prequel video games, both as a concept and in practice? In your experience, do you think they also have the problems that many claim other prequels have, or do you think they avoid or get around them thanks to the things unique to video games (such as interactivity)?

I didn't mean strictly in terms of gameplay and numbers; I thought that was clear with the very next sentence being, "It's certainly goofy in terms of gameplay, but, if you think about it, they don't necessarily need both hands for casting spells and since they're completely without armour, a shield would be a good idea for them to have from a realism point of view."

I see. That makes sense. What do you think then of the idea of pavises as an archers-&-mages-only shield?

I agree about giving a shield to an archer since they're using a two-handed ranged weapon, though a pavise might actually be a cool idea for an archer-only shield (a pavise being a shield used by crossbowmen in the Middle Ages; it was built so that they carried it and then planted it in the ground in front of them as a wall to protect them while they loaded their crossbows). As for a mage, why wouldn't a shield be a good idea for them? It's certainly goofy in terms of gameplay, but, if you think about it, they don't necessarily need both hands for casting spells and since they're completely without armour, a shield would be a good idea for them to have from a realism point of view. Ironically, an armour knight least needs a shield; their full suit of armour basically is a shield that they're wearing, and most knights in the 15th and 16th Centuries didn't use shields at all and instead used two-handed weapons like longswords and poleaxes.

It is a very good game. It probably could be very distracting; there's a lot to learn, especially depending on which weapon type you choose to use (I went for sword-&-shield since that one's supposed to be the one that's easiest for beginners) and you'll probably find that you'll have to take your time diving into the game's mechanics and such. That said, if you don't want it to distract you from your other plans and goals, this game can accommodate that: almost every quest is "hunt this monster, and you have 50 minutes to do so" and that time limit is only not generous when you're still getting used to everything and if you try to do too much at once. You could just do one or two quests per day and then go back to other things on your list; that's even how I initially played this game before the move. One quick bit of advice: while this game provides far more useful information to the player than previous games in the series (or so I'm told; this is my first time playing a Monster Hunter game), it doesn't have everything; if you're new to the series, I would recommend watching some useful beginner's guide videos online, such as those on the YouTube Channel Arekkz Gaming since its videos have a lot of good advice and useful information. True; I'm just saying that it was especially jarring with this game because the game up until near the end had actually done such a very job maintaining immersion and pacing; I never felt like I was putting off the main story when doing side content before then. Those games are less jarring because disconnect happens even earlier. With Awakening for example, you can do a number of paralogue missions and fights against risen in between chapters 9 and 10, even though the plot of chapter 10 is the characters trying to get out of Plegia. There's no illusion that you the player have the same goals as the characters you're commanding. With Zelda games... you can do all the side content whenever you want just as long as you have the needed items; how early the urgency/immersion takes the hit (or even if it ever does) really depends on the player in many ways. Also, I should probably point out that, while the game was at the point where everything was ramping up, it was not at the time just before the main boss; it was at the moment where the main boss and its goals for humanity have been revealed and are going into effect. Basically, everything's become urgent, but the heroes are at the point where they're trying to figure out how to beat the main boss, rather than at the point where they're confronting the main boss. There were still one or two main story missions left before actually confronting the main boss. Does that make sense? It's really hard to explain without spoilers. I suppose another reason I felt burned out is that I know Ys VIII has a terrible post-final boss plot twist that's so bad that it makes the final plot twist of Xenoblade Chronicles 1 look good by comparison; what's with these story-driven JRPGs and tacking on needless plot twists at the very end when the game has already had more than enough plot twists?

It actually kind-of does make sense if you think about it: "Which of these games comes the closest to how an FE remake should be?" "It all depends on which FE game is being remade" actually makes quite a bit of sense as an answer and an option, especially if your answer to the second question was also "depends on which FE game is being remade". That's the reason I thought that it actually was a good idea to add it.

I'll add that now. Sorry that I didn't see this sooner; I recently moved to a new place. I'll add that now.

Interesting. My opinion has long been that SoV was the worst way to do it; the reason for that being that Shadow Dragon, for all its faults, was at least consistent in how the team wanted to remake the game (i.e. keep it retro), and SoV to me seemed like a game where the dev team either didn't know or fundamentally disagreed on what they wanted the remake to do. It struck me as a game where they didn't know if they wanted to go for the preservation approach or the full overhaul, and the result was something weirdly arbitrary and fighting itself in terms of what it chose to leave untouched and what it chose to overhaul; resulting in a game that, to me at least, felt like something less than the sum of its parts. I certainly agree that a lot of effort was put into SoV, but it seemed to me like a lot of effort in conflicting directions (or possibly just no direction at all). It's interesting to read basically the opposite opinion. I can certainly agree that a remake of one of the better FE games with that amount of effort put into it would be spectacular; I would just want to add the caveat that that effort needs to be put in a particular direction. I wanted to add in FF7 Remake as an example of the complete overhaul approach, but there's a certain plotline that's been added to the game that's received some controversy because it makes it unclear if the game can really be called a remake. That said, outside of that particular plotline, I agree that the game is a great example of how to do the full-overhaul approach that's meant for bringing in new players while still being something the old players can enjoy.

Video game remakes have come in many different forms, from ones that tried to preserve the original as much as possible, like Ocarina of Time 3D, to remakes where the approach was to give the game a complete overhaul and bring it up to date for a modern audience, such as Final Fantasy 7 Remake. Fire Emblem has had three remakes so far: Shadow Dragon, New Mystery of the Emblem, and Shadows of Valentia. The former two would definitely fall into the "preservation/throwback" type of remake, while Shadows of Valentia is more of a directionless mix between the two philosophies. What type of video game remake do you prefer, and which one do you think would be best suited for Fire Emblem game remakes going forward?