Seazas

You're the one who jumped to conclusions and made those claims. Naturally I'm going to have to make it clear that it's my opinion especially when you tried to call me "arrogant" over your assumptions. I find it tedious and a chore to interact with. It's not even something I brought on myself since the attempted counterarguments in defense of pair up literally just proved that pair up is a big part of Fates and isn't something you can just ignore and move past. Enemy units are commonly near each other and if I want to build support or abuse support bonuses to increase one's stats, pair up is forced on me through the enemies or my own units. Usually both. Adjutants are better purely for being optional while bringing others who would've been benched in a fairly interesting and justifiable way. People rightfully find say... cantors a terrible mechanic despite them affecting your unit placement and strategy. Desert maps and poison swamps as well. Pair up changes the gameplay and strategy in a way I don't jive with. I already have to plan for the buffs, debuffs, stats, weapons and the skill system, that's more than enough especially when Fates added entirely new classes and an entirely new weapon triangle. Along with SO MANY debuff skills and debuff weapons that I have to look out for since it's unavoidable. Pair up just throws an unnecessary wrench in a playstyle I greatly enjoy doing. There is zero excuse of the characters completely breaking character and running for the hills. Even bosses, monstrous foes and many who wouldn't actually do that adhere to the shitty pair up animations anyways. I hate it and further takes me out of the system and immersion.

It doesn't suit my playstyle and I don't LIKE the system. I don't care for that "specific layer" and is why I prefer adjutants since they're optional and a choice for the player. Pair up completely changes the balance in a way I personally don't find appealing. My point was proven correct that pair up is not some avoidable system that I can just turn off or simply work around. It should not be a mainstay lmao. That's a terrible excuse. Clerics and plenty of mages are known for needing to be protected by armor units or units that can actually take a hit. Seeing the units I'm supposed to protect doing a better job at tanking than my actual tank units with the guard guage really gets me out of it. Also, the character battle animations do at least reflect their character since they're just fighting + character defining battle quotes, not randomly turning tail unless absolutely required in the narrative. Seeing Corrin run away as their child gets struck down in the pair up system is terrible and makes Corrin look like a jackass than this "all loving mother/father". "Invited an argument" by saying it's a bad system in an opinion thread. I didn't claim it was objective nor go into detail. It was easily ignorable or an "agree to disagree" situation. Not all mechanics are magically good just because they affect the gameplay, what is that logic? Or some unit affecting systems and some map designs that affect your unit and their placements wouldn't be criticized. I find the grid system better functioning since it lays the foundation for literally everything else in Fire Emblem in a smooth and clean manner.

Exactly, I try to bring a strong physical unit directly in front of a squishy magic tanking archer. My playstyle mostly being bait and punish with a switch up occasionally. But when pair up gets involved. There's a slew of buffs, debuffs and worry that I won't get the kill or even land a damned hit because the enemy could just jump in front and tank it. The system is not for me and my playstyles. I especially love keeping units close and potentially building support or abusing support bonuses in general that usually increase my unit's stats. The animations also take me out of my immersion. You're telling me that a smaller cleric girl can leap in front of a sword and block it for "zero damage" when the fully armored unit would've took some damage otherwise? Also seeing badasses or very emotional people immediately running with their tail between their legs when their paired up ally gets struck down is terrible for me.

Adjutants add another layer of planning, especially if realized and is still optional. I can't do that with Fates, my playstyle forces pair up on me since I cannot keep a unit close to another without them being involved. I also just... greatly dislike the system's animations and effect on the game balance. Specifically when enemies are anywhere near each other, pair up with potential buffs or anything still happens on the enemy side. It's clearly opinionated and taking it immediately that I'm trying to force it as fact is unnecessary. Especially when I don't use any words like "objective" and arguing a quality of something is always subjective since someone else will enjoy it. Especially on video games and this is a thread centered around opinions, not facts or what the majority will agree on in terms of what makes a game good. I can state what I desire, as long as I'm not insulting you, calling me out over this is silly. I have to constantly justify subjective stuff like an opinion...really? I simply find it terrible and unnecessary. Pair up is a major part of Fates design to the point it affects unit placement and if an enemy is near another enemy and gets buffed. Oops! That planned strategy to barely kill the enemy is at risk of being moot. That's not counting the system where an enemy automatically blocks it with certain requirements. Technicalities are technicalities. You directly brought up an older unrelated system as a rebuttal. Which doesn't count since the grid system is central part of Fire Emblem as a whole since the beginning. I find the other systems you brought up as comparison just better all around.

When did I ever say pair up sucked as a system "objectively"? You do realize what thread we're on? It's unpopular opinions and since the topic was about pair up, I have my own opinion.

Except I don't even mind adjutants or Mila's Turnwheel. It's not because it's "new", it's a bad system I do not care for. And you're the one who made use older games since you needlessly brought up older and different systems to Pair up. Like the entire grid based gameplay. That was a terrible point.

Promotion, however, did exist for much longer than pair up. I don't like pair up as a system and reaching to compare the main grid-based gameplay of Fire Emblem is asinine

No, many enemies usually pair up either intentionally or because they happen to be standing next to each other before one of them initiates combat. I don't care for it and the general meta that centers around pair up 100% being optimal. Adjutants as a system is better than pair up. What a disingenuous comparison. FE day 1 had that kind of thing with every single mechanic consistently intertwining a grid. Pair up is a recent addition that isn't needed for strategy.

And? As I said, a fleshed out adjutant system is better. I prefer an optional strat that proves more opportunities than pair up which completely bends the game to be centered around it. No thanks.

There were plenty of strats with it, and it's better so the entire game doesn't center around this stupid mechanic like Pair Up does.

Pair up is a trash mechanic, a fleshed out adjutant system is better.

>No Selena, Mae or Serra >Kris Nice try Intsys, easily a flop of a gauntlet. Hilda or Duma of all people will steamroll.

Mae Leon

Even so, that isn't a good excuse to randomly not make Byleth fight for the sake of the three lords. Pokemon Trainer made sense since they don't fight and can use the three Pokemon. Byleth can not do that.

If Warriors 2 wasted amiibo on Edelgard, Dimitri and Claude that'd be so saddening. Seeing various FE game characters like Tiki getting amiibo is so much cooler imo. Like, if Tellius is a major part of Warriors 2, it'd be cooler if Micaiah got one so she can join the amiibo lord squad.

Miranda was revealed? Where???

Said it better than I could, Rowan is the worst. Camilla and Tharja at the very least earned their popularity and spot in the roster among many others. Rowan is an annoying random OC that is prioritized over so many inclusions that earned their right to be in Warriors yet couldn't be in it. Even worse with Koei's tone deaf excuse of "too many sword lords!" then waste resources on the most generic cookie cutter sword lord to ever exist with an awful character.

Uh huh... We literally have rocks that are png low effort textures for example. Along with clones yet they never really did much with such an easy concept since the roster was still awful even AFTER DLC which is just... ??? Hyrule Warriors had so much more after DLC. Isn't the Warriors History Mode Maps literally just recycled content with still portraits all the way through? It's not that great either. Along with the three games being the only focused content with DLC not changing that along with baffling decisions like Azura in DLC. Yet they still had the gall to throw NPC clones that should've been in base game. Warriors felt rushed. We still don't have some iconic classes in the game, it's ridiculous. The fact that we have to wait until the SEQUEL for a shot of unique classes like Armors, Cavs and other stuff is weird. Good thing I clarified that I don't want Warriors 2 to happen SOON, not ever. Koei being split up on resources and projects will only gimp Warriors 2 in the long run, that being one of my reasons than just my bias against Rowan and Lianna Considering Koei recycles assets all the time, Rowan and Lianna will appear again. Age of Calamity is different purely because it's a canon entry.

And? I'm saying I personally don't want one for a while so Rowan and Lianna don't have a future in other FE content. Especially with what they did with Itsuki and TMS, where they have Itsuki shine side by side with the lords on the anniversary video with the 8bit thing. Which is fine but shouldn't happen with discount Ephraim and Eirika. Plus, making one as of now will only have it be another rushed cashgrab like the original game. Koei has plenty of work as is, if Warriors 2 takes a while long after the "shameless terrible cashgrab" reaches the end of its lifespan, that's great.

Alfonse isn't the star of the show in those side stories however, he's usually just... there and if that's somehow bad then I have bad news for you regarding Warriors History Maps and Supports. Also, 4 booksworth isn't saying much since Heroes' dialogue and story in those are ridiculously short. Rowan and Lianna's beginning sequence has more dialogue than half of Book 1 if not all of it lmao. I find it okay since Alfonse isn't a super powerful character, just competent with allies like Kiran to keep the team afloat. Not his fault, Intsys rushes their stories since Fjorm and Eir definitely are treated as the main stars of their book, not Alfonse. With their special beef and connections to the main villain of each book and all. They just try to force each book to match a schedule. Alfonse is still a better character and less insufferable than Rowan. Better to be boring than an annoying twat who the story centers around anyway.

Except Rowan is still canonically apart of the story so I have to see him and his ugly design + annoying attitude no matter what. And he showcases his stupid knight gimmick all the time in the story. We are glued to Rowan and Lianna and their mediocre writing with them having the center stage all the time. While everyone else flips flops out of the spotlight. Your point falls flat since we can also not use Alfonse and due to Heroes' story being minimal, we see a lot less of Alfonse than we do with Rowan and Lianna, who have boatloads of writing and main story action. After all, they ARE supposed to be the main leads. Alfonse having favoritism doesn't make him a worse character nor detract from his okay writing. That's on Intsys' poor handling of the cast, Alfonse getting heat for that is ridiculous. He showcases his traits and grows as a character, his arc overall being decent and solidifying his position as the main lord of Heroes. Naturally he'd have more writing than others since he's THE main lord of Heroes, not mediocre one offs like Fjorm or Eir.

The Archanean and Shadows of Valentia choices are actually really good though. Clive is the goat and Atlas is great.

Woah, Woah, Woah. Relax, I didn't mean it as an insult to Encore. TMS is alright since it gives the proper respect Archanea deserves than the shameful display Warriors provided. Intsys adding TMS into Heroes shows that they're willing to add anything into Fire Emblem Heroes since TMS is a side game that didn't sell that well. At least we agree Lianna and Rowan suck. Those miserable excuses of protagonists are the worst we ever had. Alfonse >>> Rowan. Alfonse at least showcases his smarts in the story something Rowan's stupid little sister never did. Along with that, Alfonse at worst is just inoffensive and isn't an annoying ugly looking turd like Rowan.

Good thing the Book 1 OCs are most prominent then like Alfonse and Veronica. Warriors 1 happened when Heroes cared to be fair. At this point, they would 100% add any new character that releases in any sort of Fire Emblem content. It happened with #FE Encore. If Warriors 2 happened Rowan and Lianna are 100% being shoved in Heroes, which shouldn't happen as they don't deserve a future.

>Just Kris and Kris alone is a bad Archanea choice You sir have a great thought process