Slumber

The entirety of Gen 1 is ultimately Sigurd's decision. He brings Oifey on as his adviser, but it doesn't amount to too much. While it's noble and just to effectively go to war with Verdane for a friend, Sigurd doesn't live in a noble and just world, and this whole event makes Jugdral up for grabs in the eyes of a lot of the rulers. He's strong, but he's ill prepared to handle most of the events from chapter 2 onward when he stops dealing with weak armies, bandits and bands of mercenaries. A big one is that Claude warns him that Arvis seems to have his own agenda after Kurth is killed, and it probably isn't super great for Sigurd... yeah. He makes himself the perfect scapegoat for Reptor and Langobalt by diving headfirst into war without thinking about it, in an incredibly hostile environment, after Lex himself acknowledges to Sigurd that his father hates Chalphy. Taken with the fact that Dozel as a whole is known as a war happy kingdom that will go to war at the drop of the hat. Queen Rahna ALSO brings this up and tells Sigurd that marching south is a bad idea. Also Silesia gets dragged into the war because Langobalt follows Sigurd there, but Sigurd was invited by Rahna, so that's kind of a wash. Not a good idea on either of their parts. Had Sigurd actually stayed in Silesia like she suggested, there's a decent chance Byron would have made it there(Not sure if anyone would have been able to tend his wounds any better, so he might have died there, too) and they probably would have been able to put up much more of a fight against the proto-Granvalle army. No saving Quan and Ethlin here, though, so that wouldn't have really changed. Obviously, as the player, we know what's happening much more clearly. We see the scheming. But so many lords and advisers are able to side step the massive tragedies that Sigurd just walks into, because Sigurd goes from 0 to 100 faster than just about any lord in the franchise. A lot of gen 1 can be summed up as "Hey Sigurd, maybe you shouldn't do that." and Sigurd going "Oh, I'm gonna do the FUCK out of that!" Only in much more flowery language.

That's the mindset I've been under, though. There are two lords who were generally forced to pay really hard for bullheaded decisions in the franchise. Sigurd and Leif. Both of them suffer the worst when they disregard the advice of their tacticians and act on their own, but Sigurd suffers way harder for it, and he get himself in more trouble for his own decisions. You get people like Eirika and Celica making a few dumb decisions when acting for themselves, but it really doesn't amount to much, and they're convinced into doing those things. Sigurd and Leif make bad decisions all on their own. Like, this is a goofy "What if" thread, but I'm assuming we're in comparable worlds that would require the protection of these people. This, on top of Sigurd being a bad decision making machine, makes him far and away the sketchiest lord to want to be protected by. If it's just "Oh, no, just for your daily life and nothing changes", then sure. Sigurd would probably be fine. Actually I'm not even sure in this case. Remember that Sigurd essentially started a continental war(Or at least heavily instigated it, kicking the bee's nest that is Jugdral's political climate) because a friend of his was captured, and that snowballed into a personal crusade against the corrupt leaders of the continent. What would that correlate to if some dudes were talking shit to me at a bar? How long until that turns into him dragging me to Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban or trying to overthrow North Korea? I don't trust a planet cracking sword to protect me from bullets.

At best, no major forward moving/progressive rulings would be made in that time frame. At worst, we'd get incredibly regressive rulings and overturning of old court cases that set precedents. I don't know how this works out, but if Trump does get indicted/investigated for something, is he allowed to still appoint SC justices? Because that might be something of an out until the election, supposing Mueller's investigation yields something on Trump.

I don't think it's too much to not want a bodyguard who couldn't protect their spouse. Was Sigurd at a disadvantage in that scenario? Yes. Is there ever a situation where Sigurd isn't in a disadvantage in all ways but martial strength? I don't think so. Starting at chapter 3, Sigurd's life becomes a series of failures because he starts getting put in situations that he can't just brute-force his way through. It just amuses me that anyone would pick the lord who has the biggest friendly body count under their belt, and the lord who was designed to fail in order to show the flaws in the heroic lord archetype, as their bodyguard. Especially when there is a lord who partially rose to prominence through being a bodyguard. If the argument is just "Sigurd's strong", why not just pick Seliph? He has all the strength of Sigurd by the end of FE4, and he wasn't designed from the outset to be destined for failure.

Now that it's officially winter(+1 day), here's a song I have a strong attachment to for the wintery season for whatever reason. I guess it's just got some cool, soft instrumentals and vibes to it. Reminds me of falling snow.

Maybe out of the whole cast, sure, but this thread is about the lords. Probably should have made that clearer, but take it with the context of the thread.

You can make as many excuses as you want, but nobody in the franchise has proven to be a worse bodyguard in the franchise than Sigurd.

A bodyguard is supposed to be near their employer at all times. Just like a husband is supposed to be near his wife at all times, and we know how that turned out.

I mean, beyond that, Sigurd failed to protect his wife, his best friend, his sister, his brother-in-law and his father. And his ideals and lack of foresight are what led to Arvis doin' his thing. I struggle to think of a Lord who did a worse job at protecting people close to them. Even Leif, whose whole deal is needing to grow up through failure and learn to lead in a far more hostile environment than Sigurd did, managed to have most of his liberation force actually survive. There's really nobody besides Shannan and Oifey that Sigurd successfully protected.

FE5, I'd argue almost without question. You play a scrappy guerilla force, and your army is constantly on the run or on the defensive whenever the enemy army shows up in full force. You generally only ever put up a proper fight when August or Dorias have a plan put together and you can take on the enemy on your own terms. Leif's army can only function when taking on bandits or when using hit-and-run tactics. Any moment Leif tries to act on his own and bite off more than he can chew, he is almost immediately made to regret it.

Yeah, but... Sigurd failed to do that. The correct answer is Ike.

Yeah, Path of Radiance is basically the Grust or the Bern arc of Tellius. Sephiran's involvement really means you have to take FE9's and FE10's stories as one big whole story.

Tharja's not physically violent, but her willingness to hex and threaten people who get in her way(Or just for the hell of it sometimes) is very yandere. In a setting where magic exists, harming somebody with magic should be taken as seriously as harming somebody through physical means.

Fomortiis. Though IIRC, Lyon wasn't TRYING to summon Fomortiis, it just kinda happened.

Considering the part that sets video games apart from other media is the part where you play it, I'd argue that you still need to actually have firsthand experience to concretely call a game bad. Somebody can become an expert at a bad game and make it look good. Somebody can suck shit at a good game and make it look bad. This is why I don't rate games I haven't played, since there's a huge disconnect when watching somebody else play a game. There are some games where this doesn't strictly apply, but I'd say for almost every single game, you need firsthand experience to give legitimate criticism.

Compared to Awakening and Fates, yes. But it sold what IS expected. It was a lower budget project and it's a remake of a divisive game in the franchise. They knew it wasn't going to pull Awakening/Fates numbers.

Reminder #6,589 that Toei sucks.

Like I said, I didn't go out of my way to play anything I knew was bad, or knew would be bad. The characters of Octopath are... fine, but due to the way the game is structured, and there being next to no character interactions, you get each character's 5 hours worth of personal quests, and that's about it. I think the static structure of the stories is what hurts it so much.

Best: Red Dead Redemption 2. Warts and all, I enjoyed the ride, and the game is a technical marvel. Dragon Quest XI. I was upset with the seemingly flipped structure of the game compared to other DQ games, but getting over that, it was a very good DQ game. Super Smash Brothers Ultimate. It's only been a few weeks, but it's been a lot of fun. Spirit Mode has actually been a fun side attraction, and putting all of the references together has been fun. Being able to play with friends and family all the time has been great, too. Full disclosure for my worst games of the year, I didn't go out of my way to play any games I knew would be bad, so I won't be putting the obvious choices here. I could see games like Fallout 76 and Metal Gear Survive being bad from 10 miles away, so I avoided them. Sp despite this being a "Worst" list, I would still probably say all of the games here are still largely good games. Worst: God of War. Controversial pick, but I'm reaching my tipping point of "Everything games". I don't think putting EVERYTHING in God of War was for the best, and the combat was pretty eh. The camera's obnoxious, and fighting 20 trolls for boss fights isn't a good way to handle most of your boss fights in an action game. Points for making me actually like Kratos a bit, though, since he's been god awful since the original game. Monster Hunter World. Another controversial pick, but long story short, I just don't think this franchise for me. I knew this years ago, but so many people told me "Noooooo, it's different. This one is totally accessible. We'll play with you!" I still can't get into this franchise. I hate the structure of the games. I actively questioned why I bothered with the gameplay loop every time I did a hunt. Octopath Traveler. I enjoyed this much more than the other two on my worst list, but I just feel that there were so many missed opportunities for this game that it just ended up being disappointing. It's pretty and has a fun battle system, but the story's incredibly bare, and the characters aren't anything special. For a game structured around its cast, you'd think it'd do more with them. Most anticipated for 2019: Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice. I'm a big Fromsoft Stan. Sekrio looks like their first proper action game since they've exploded in relevance, and I'm really excited to see how it turns out. Everything looks very promising so far. Devil May Cry V. I've been asking for this game for 10 years, and it looks fantastic. Resident Evil 2 Remake. I've been asking for this game for 15 years, and it looks fantastic. Project Awakening. This one surprises me the most. While Capcom is off making other games I really want, I am now questioning if I'll ever get a game like Dragon's Dogma ever again. This game might fit the bill, combined with some Monster Hunter(Minus the gameplay loop that I can't stand). I actually doubt this will make its 2019 release, but I hope. I really want a good Japanese RPG for 2019. The Outer Worlds. On the flipside, a western RPG from one of the best WRPG makers in the business. I'm psyched for Fallout: New Vegas in space. Psychonauts 2. I put $90 into it. Psychonauts 1 is my second favorite game of all time. They're getting almost everyone that made the first game special back. All of their pre-release material has been great. I need it.

Yup. They don't even have to be suicidal. Just stuff like chapter 26 of FE7 sucks. Almost every other FE objective is within your control. Defending green units who either act on their own, or are a total train on resources to properly defend are just awful.

Ah yeah. I misread. I guess I never thought to much about it. Aside from Tellius and Ylisse(For obvious reasons), we never learn too much about ancient history like that for most of the continents, so I just took the fact that the history of Jugdral essentially starts with Galle and Loptyr at face value.

Give me a remake of 3 alongside the new 5 on the Switch. Do it, Atlus. DO IT AND I'LL GET THE DEMI-FIEND TATTOOS.

I'd say the biggest issue with the series right now is its inability to move on from the structure laid out by FE1. Whether it be the same story structure of "A mighty military nation is secretly influenced by an evil sorcerer to do bad things, but the evil sorcerer is doing bad things for an even bigger baddie, usually of the scaled variety", or just repeating character archetypes like the Camus constantly. It's one thing to do this once or twice, but IS has done it for almost every single game in the franchise. Archanea does it twice-ish. Valentia does it. Jugdral does it. Elibe twists the formula a bit, but can be simplified in these terms for both games. PoR does it, and the full payoff is in RD. Awakening does it. The only two that don't really do it are Fates and SS, but even they still rely heavily on some aspects of this story structure.

Yeah, I always forget the SMT series has two DDSes. And then it has 2 DS games on the DS. Atlus needs help with acronyms.

Nocturne was my intro to the series, and it's still probably the high point for me when it comes to the main series. Also love Persona 2, 4 and 5 for spin-offs. DDS 1 and 2 are great, too.