vanguard333

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?

I can understand being afraid that they'd do that, but that's more often a problem of stuff like brainwashing. An SES usually, if anything, gives the protagonist more angst and guilt as they see the SES doing something bad as them (the protagonist) losing control and seriously messing up, especially since unleashing the SES is usually either a choice or something caused by deep emotional trauma.

It's funny; I have no genre that excites me or increases my interest, but I can definitely think of a few that instantly turn me off: 1. Looter: I value experiences and intrinsic rewards in games. The gameplay and story need to be satisfying on their own terms. As a result, any game that's designed to put me on a treadmill of collecting loot that I'll have to replace two minutes later with slightly different loot that has slightly better numbers, only to inevitably end anticlimactically when I have the very best loot and there's nothing to do with it except brag that I wasted so much time obtaining it, will get a hard "no" from me. 2. Shooter (1st or 3rd person; doesn't matter): Instant nope; I don't like guns, and I don't like how the games are often tedious and monotonous. Hard no for me. 3. Horror: I'm just not a fan and I rarely see the point. It doesn't help that most of them are basically just walking simulators with cheap jump-scares. 4. Walking Sims: What's the point? Isn't the point of a game to interact and actually do stuff? 5. Dating Sims: I can enjoy romance as a bit of side-content in any game, just like I can appreciate a good romantic subplot in a show/movie/book of almost any genre (shame that so few actually are good), but when it's front-and-center as the only thing in the game, then it just gets a no from me. 6. MMO-lite: They all inevitably end up suffering the exact same problems: The story tells you you're a unique chosen one when there's 40 of you running around The game is clearly unfinished The combat is boring and monotonous You can't play offline when playing by yourself It's inevitably a looter etc. You'd think that they'd be trying to make something that has all the positives of MMOs and regular video games and none of the drawbacks, but they end up with all the drawbacks and none of the positives. I, given all these companies' resources and staff, could probably make a better MMO-lite than these companies, and I do not say that lightly. I'm sure there are more genres, but I can't think of any more off the top of my head at the moment.

When it comes to any form of media (so not just video games), I don't really love any particular genres. For me, what gets me interested is seeing the premise of the particular piece of media, rather than its genre. I tend to gravitate towards things that offer an unusual, creative and intriguing premise, which means that I have a tendency to end up reading/watching/playing a lot of rather niche stuff, though I do also like a fair bit of mainstream stuff as well. As a result, I also end up enjoying a wide variety of different things.

One idea that I kind-of want to see done with an FE protagonist, after Fates gave it to Corrin but then never touched on it again after chapter 5, is the idea of a protagonist with a superpowered evil side (see either the video below or the link to the TV Tropes article for a more detailed explanation of the trope than I can provide). Trope Talk: Superpowered Evil Sides - YouTube Superpowered Evil Side - TV Tropes I think that there's a lot that could be done with the trope and it would be outside IS's comfort zone while also being familiar and recognizable enough for them to work with it thanks to things like dragon degeneration, Greil touching Lehran's Medallion, Jeritza/Death Knight, etc.

I like the idea of an FE game deviating from Medieval European aesthetic. I personally would like something along the line of an Ancient Celts Fire Emblem game, or maybe even multiple ancient civilizations: there could be a Roman Empire fighting some Celtic kingdoms and Greek city-states and stuff like that.

My current progress: I have yet to finish playing a single game on my list. I almost finished Ys VIII, but recent events in my life (a combination of University and moving) have made it that I currently don't have time to play the games. Plus, near the end, I felt oddly burned out, which I found rather weird because I had been largely enjoying the story and gameplay and I was in the last chapter of the game, when everything's ramping up, most of the game's mysteries have been revealed, and it's time to confront the main villain. Perhaps it was the fact that, even though I was this close to the end and I had explored every part of the island and found every castaway, the game was like, "Okay, here's the last round of side objectives" and I was just thinking, "Wouldn't it have made more sense to give me these before this moment, so as not to feel like I'm putting off the main story?" Something I had been really liking about the game was the way in which I never lost immersion when doing side content as it was all just something that the characters would be willing to do at those points in the story, and that illusion came down right at the end there when the main story's screaming "Urgent! Urgent!" and the side content is saying, "Feel free to take your time." Making things worse for my resolution would be that I bought another game to add to the list: Monster Hunter Rise. It's my first time playing a Monster Hunter game and I bought it because, after playing multiple story-driven JRPGs with combat that was serviceable not not much worth thinking about (Ys VIII, Bravely Default 2 demo, Dragon Quest 11 demo), I needed to play something that offered more with its gameplay and with a story that, while still there to some extent, took a bit of a back seat. Plus, I had never played Monster Hunter before and this game looked really interesting as well as a good game with which to start playing the series. I have to say, so far, I am not disappointed: the combat's fun and has a lot to it, there's a real learning curve, and it has been pretty good so far at giving me everything I've needed to know without any handholding, so it's pretty beginner-friendly in that regard. I've also been looking at maybe getting something like Persona 5 Royal (because it's been recommended to me a lot) after completing a few of the games on the list, and hopefully Monster Hunter Rise will have fed my hunger for a good-in-its-own-rights gameplay experience enough that I can go back to something more focused on the story.

Yeah; trust me when I say that you haven't experienced truly terrible and entitled customers until you've worked in retail. I had a job at a store for half a year (I'm deliberately avoiding details) that basically amounted to moving products onto the shelves, changing price tags, and every now and then helping customers find the items they're looking for. Most customers were nice and understood when I couldn't answer their questions (I had only been working at the store for a little while; I didn't know where everything was), but every now and then, you get the really bad customers; I was even given the offer to take the rest of the day off after having to deal with a particularly bad one. As far as gamers and video game companies go, pretty much what @Etrurian emperor said: it's rather hard to see things from the company's perspective when the company is frequently guilty of a ton of anti-consumer practices.

Well, if she would count, then that would be my choice.

Would Micaiah (who is not green) count if her down special is summoning Sothe (who is very green) in a similar way that Zelda summons Phantom armour?

Those three were almost-certainly just there as temporary placeholders since the models and assets for them already existed. They were likely chosen for being vaguely similar to the actual characters that were planned to be in the game. I especially think this is the case because the images with them in it are the closest to looking at actual in-game concept footage (and probably are in-game concept footage), while the rest is obviously concept art, and they are also clearly shown as the only player-controlled characters. If they were actually going to be in the game, they wouldn't be alone. More to the point, neither Stefan, Ilyana, or Rhys are ever presented in the Tellius games as having any reason to, well, leave Tellius. Stefan would come the closest, but his Radiant Dawn ending reveals that he ends up turning his Branded settlement into an independent kingdom within Tellius.

I see. I honestly don't mind the outfit that Jessie wears. I can agree with this, though Aerith does have her moments of being "sexy"; namely if you get the best dress for her for that quest.