Alastor15243

Ah. I can't say I agree with your value judgment there, honestly. None of those things with their powers even showed up on my radar when debating who the worst lord is storywise. And I find annoying actions to be way worse than annoying abilities. But anyway, I thought you were going to bring up the Blood Pact, hence my curiosity because honestly the Blood Pact isn't so bad as it's made out to be in my opinion, and even if it were, the business with the Hoshidan Throne is as close as makes no different to objectively worse in every way.

Hm... Would you care to share your perspective as to why you find Corrin better than Micaiah writingwise? In my opinion everything one could argue was done poorly with Micaiah was done worse with Corrin.

Even for Ryoma and Xander and Corrin, units practically designed for enemy phase and who are almost never ever ever more useful unpaired than paired? Even when some of them have issues that pair-up bots can easily patch up? Even when the decision not to train them means more experience to go around and thus a stronger army in general?

Then just assume the computer is a genius that will intentionally let all the weakest attacks get blocked. Also, just so you know, the ninjas will always attack first so you can always count on that. That's still a massive reduction. And the stat boosts may be lesser in this game, but so are stats in general, so the relative improvement is roughly the same, and actually doesn't require any investment in the back unit at all to be effective.

The difference between being paired up and not being paired up means taking as little as 1/3 the damage (without pairup you take all of the attacks when paired up units only take every other attack if you can double-counterattack every enemy, and you also avoid the dual strikes that add 50% extra damage on average). It's a ridiculously huge difference that makes pair-up the unquestionably superior option in nearly every situation that doesn't involve a defense map or ninjas.

There's no charm in Genealogy's weapon balance. It's practically offensive.

I didn’t mean that as a bad thing, I meant it as unexpected and attention-grabbing. I think that if you’re going to say something you know nearly everyone disagrees with you on, you should probably explain how you got there. Otherwise what’s the point of saying it?

Well at least in my case, when somebody says something decidedly out-of-the-ordinary and then doesn't elaborate why they think that way, I tend to want an explanation.

In what conceivable area?

They’re more fragile than the Conquest characters to be sure, but only slightly and on average, and the lack of skills or significantly intelligent unit placement means it isn’t hard. Even if it is harder (and better) than Revelaton because it actually has enemy units keep up the pressure with regular advances on your position and reinforcements.

It made pair up more necessary by throwing in vulnerability to dual strikes when not in guard stance, which just in general makes it hard to calculate how much damage your units will be taking but also multiplied enemy phase damage by 1.5 when fighting solo. In general putting your units in range of the enemy outside of guard stance is a death wish. And what do you have against the affinity system besides the building mechanism I said I wouldn’t use?

Well, I was hoping for more enemies to fight, but I managed to make things a bit interesting at least. Up to chapter 25 now.

It nerfed pair-up while simultaneously making it even more necessary for frontline fighters, and also Awakening had more unit slots a lot of the time. As for which system, the affinity system of 6-10 but with added potential bonuses like attack speed and such and also SoV’s 1-2 range build-through-action system.

Aoe support bonuses rather than the pair-up system. I prefer the system that forces you to have your social sets fight side by side as equals rather than one hiding behind the other and never having to grow. Plus I just don’t like how much smaller the pair up system makes your party, especially in Fates.

Agreed. The advance games introduce the basic core elements without having overly archaic interfaces, they’re an ideal place to start, but specifically 7 is the best.

A strategy game you can’t lose is like a puzzle with no wrong solutions. This isn’t an environmental narrative game or a game that prioritizes score over objectives. This is a genre whose entire appeal is using your brain to come up with clever solutions to what the game can throw at you.

But that's my point. You were playing a game you basically could not lose. You were playing a game at a difficulty leagues below your skill level because you were intimidated by a difficulty setting that sounded harder than it really was. That's not engaging, that's a movie with repetitive fight scenes. My point to the OP is this: permadeath isn't nearly as scary or difficult as it sounds. Don't let a scary-sounding feature persuade you to cheat yourself out of an engaging first experience with the series. It's not worth it.

But you were playing Awakening, the game that most rewards funneling experience into a handful of units. If a few of your units were underleveled from continuously dying, that means a few of your units were overleveled, which would make it even harder to get a game over. And for perspective, funneling all of your experience into 2 or 3 units can trivialize every difficulty level except Lunatic+. I'm having difficulty visualizing the scenario you're describing. Are you saying you got late-game total party wipes because you didn't spread your experience thin enough? Because that doesn't make any sense.

Corrin, because setting aside their cowardice, stupidity, selfishness and complete and near failure to do anything funny, awesome or otherwise memorable over the course of three games... I just don't feel like I'm playing as them. In-level Corrin and out-of-level Corrin feel like they're supposed to be two completely different characters. In-game, I'm controlling one of the most powerful characters in the game and having them lead armies to victory against tremendous odds with (turn based combat assisted) lightning-fast decision making and brilliant tactical maneuvers and long-term planning. And then from when the battle ends until the next one begins I'm watching this character flop around like a blind limbless puppy, showing no critical thinking skills whatsoever, regularly having trouble with trivial opponents, and generally being the biggest pinball protagonist I've ever seen. I cannot think of a single main character in the entire history of the series who feels less like the player character of a strategy game than Corrin does.

And how often did you actually lose on Casual mode? The restarting threshold difference between classic and casual is astronomical. Losing casual mode requires a total party wipe, something so rare I can't remember a single scenario in the entire history of me playing Fire Emblem, which is since I was twelve, where that would ever have happened. I just don't understand the appeal of casual mode. There are easy modes for people who have trouble. Casual mode is practically an entirely different game from classic mode.

My only real concern with a remake of 4 is that they'll do what they did with gaiden and leave all the atrociously, transparently poorly-aged mechanics alone, which I honestly do not think would be a good idea. Fire Emblem 4 is the most terribly-balanced game in the entire damned series. Need I even mention the spellbook weights? Jesus Christ if they didn't fix at least that I'd probably scream. On the other hand, with the top-notch presentation of SoV in mind, FE4 definitely has the story I most badly want to see come to life in that style.

I vote for Blazing Sword because it’s a good game, it’s cheaper than the 3DS ones, and if you don’t play it first, that ever-so-helpful tutorial will wind up coming across as a bit annoying. You only need to do it once though before you can play lyn mode on hard and never have to do the tutorial again, and as I said, if it’s your first game you won’t mind it at all. Also, the pair up system is something I suspect would be a bit much to take in all at once along with the rest of the mechanics. Also, whatever you decide to play first, DO NOT PLAY ON CASUAL. I know permadeath is intimidating and all, but the game’s difficulty is balanced around it, and playing on casual will make the game way less engaging and satisfying. You won’t get a good first impression of the game if you play on casual.

A point of agreement that is so general and low a bar it might as well have been an indistinct "mmmHMMMMmmmm" noise. But yes, agreed, Peri is cancer.

Not entirely sure if this is unpopular or not, but I can't stand Soleil. I think she's a great unit gameplaywise, especially since she completely wrecks ninjas and maids as a bow knight, but I just can't stand her personality. It's like they tried to make a female Laslow but without any of his flaws (which was a bad idea to begin with, it just screams obnoxious positive discrimination) but then actually wound up making a female Laslow with even worse flaws and just had everyone pretend they weren't there. She is waaaaaay more of a creep than Laslow will ever be, what with her stalking girls from behind bushes, chasing them all over camp (let alone what it implies she plans to do when put in Ophelia's body), and that's to say nothing of the stuff they cut out of the English version like her supports with Forrest. And yet she doesn't get nearly as much shit for it in-universe as Laslow does. She's insufferable.

I'd also like to point out that Ike, who as others have said fought and kicked the ass of half of the creator of the universe, said he's never fought anybody half as tough as Robin when you beat Rogues and Redeemers III in Awakening. Which, if he's not using hyperbole bordering on war crime, would put Robin's power level pretty fucking high.