[List 2 changes you'd make to your 1st Fire Emblem Game]

My first FE game was Awakening.

While I don't really like it...at all, I guess here's two changes that might have made it so I'd have actually finished it by now. 

1: Remove Pair-up,it's boring and blatantly overpowered so just bring Rescue back since when I discovered Rescue in FE7 I got very excited.

2: Delete Robin entirely, I don't like them, at all:
 I dislike their character, which feels incredibly generic.

 I despise how the game loves to praise Robin more often than a Killing Edge gets Critical hits.

 I don't like how they get more important later on and I don't even like them from the start as their entire recruitment by Chrom is a heavy contrivance.

Plus, the ironically named "Tactician" class is just a boring overpowered one man army class that doesn't actually improve the game's tactics in anyway.

They're basically everything I hate in a self-insert character and then some.

 

[the results of my six-year-old brother trying Fire Emblem for the first time]

1 hour ago, JubileePhoenix said:

If he likes the game that;s all that matters... but member to disown him if he hates Fire emblem. 

No, you need to trap him in a fort with water levels that go up and down, tons of soldiers and camp a throne with a bolting tome.

That's how you deal with bad family members.

 

[How do you think avatars should be handled?]

10 hours ago, whase said:

This would be a really cool concept for a Fire Emblem game and I hope they will some day do this.

Other than that, I very easily identify with an "avatar". Whether you give me Byleth, Robin, or even Ike, if you tell me "hey this is you" that is all I need. (I know Ike isn't an avatar, but to me he feels almost as much of an avatar as Byleth and Robin did.) So I don't mind Nintendo/IS/KT calling them avatars, but they may just as well have been regular characters, it's not like the "choices" added much to the game.

Now don't ask me what a "real avatar" means, but giving actual choices sounds like a fun idea. It's not like FE needs it though, I'm currently replaying FE6 and deciding paths on what units you are training sounds like a much more fun decision making mechanic. (Not saying FE6 did it perfectly, but it has more potential and I'm sad they didn't use this again.)

For me personally, the problem is Robin don't feel like a regular character in a way that didn't effect Mark. (Ironically enough considering Mark is Dora the Explorer and is even more explicitly a player stand-in.)

Mark isn't very suspiciouis and his first real "Gig" in Elibe is with Lyn, who isn't in a position to be picky if she wanted to, the only real suspicious thing is Hector mentioning how they're a little young (insert semi-joke theory about how they're not actually a tactician.)and even then they've probably got a bit of fame from helping Lyn,  in-universe, this makes sense, he's even initally taken in by Eliwood in a sorta spur-of-the-moment thing involving a bandit attack.

Robin, well, Robin is wearing Pelgian Robes, is amensic but knows Chrom's name and is capable of killing someone with magic and a swrod, that is suspicious, alot, yet Chrom, after not knowing Robin for even 24 hours, decides he wants this dude, to lead his army, I distinctly recall thinking "what?!" when I saw that for the first time because Robin shouldn't be trusted to command generic low level foot troops without supervision, let alone the Shepards after not even a day, it doesn't feel believable at all.

So while Mark being given a leadership role made sense for me, it doesn't to me with Robin, at all.

Doesn't help Awakening likes to praise the player via character dialogue/supports that don't change to reflect deaths, which only makes it feel even more obnoxious, like someone praising you for even the slightest action, FE7 praises the player sure but not to the extent of characters (Such as Virion's support) claiming you "Never make sacrifices" which, well, if the support dialgoue changed and that only played if you did infact do that? I wouldn't have a problem but it always does, Robin is always being praised like he's never losing even when the player is in all I've seen so that sorta again, makes it feel like the game is kissing up to me which I don't like at all.

So while I never once questioned Mark being in a leadership role, it bothered me when Robin was given the same in Awakening. (The fact Robin is also a really, really overpowered unit while Mark hides behind the lord also effects this.)

Plus like I said, Mark is a tactician who has to rely on others to fight  (more so if you take Lyn finding Mark on the plains as him possibly being robbed by bandits on the plains before the game begins.) while by FE standards Robin is a one-person army  (which actually I feel flies in the face of Awakening's moral of the real superpower of friendship.) Which both makes him feel even more like a player-insert who's special to try to make the player feel empowered (or obnoxiously being pandered towards in my case) and kinda flies in the face of being a strategy game.

[Who is you least liked or most hated FE characters]

2 hours ago, Thane said:

I'll copy what I wrote on Reddit not long ago when this question was asked.

If we exclude Fates, then my choice remains the same as always: Alm.

Faye may have been a horrible addition to Echoes, a one note caricature of a character, but she's not at all important in the grand scheme of things.

Alm, however, is the central focus of Echoes, so much so that he more or less renders his supposed counterpart and fellow protagonist, Celica, superfluous.

Alm starts out as a friendly and patient guy who's ready to do the right thing. He's a great fighter from the get-go and achieves victory after victory. In fact, Alm simply does not stop winning, and absolutely demolishes any resistance put up against him, even when Berkut is at the helm, which has the consequence of making the villains look ineffective at the best of times.

Not only that, but Alm is also the chosen one, the one destined to save Valentia and use the plot sword to defeat the big bad dragon. While Celica gets manipulated and captured, Alm defeats the empire despite the massive disadvantage Zofia has (a grossly overlooked part of the story), saves the princess and defeats the big bad.

This kind of power trip is not very appealing to me, but what absolutely ruins it for me is Alm's lack of opposition and, for the lack of a better word, controversy. Alm basically does or says no wrong...ever. Even if you'd argue that he does, like when he goes after Nuibaba, it ends with the absolutely best possible results. He's such a good guy that he mourns both Fernand and Berkut, people he knows as nothing but petty traitors or opponents who never even showed him respect, and in Berkut's case a cold-blooded murderer.

Alm does not fit the story of his own game. In a game about duality and reaching a middle ground between extreme ideals, Alm is too perfect to exist, which negatively impacts everyone around him. This holds doubly true for Celica.

 

For what it's worth, there are a few kinda player-driven moments where Alm can screw up. (such as killing Zeke or failing to save Mathilda) where other characters will call him out on it. (The entire village basically hates you if you kill Zeke and the scene with Clive having doubts about Alm takes on a different tone where he kinda has more of a point.)

Granted it's still different from Celica making more impactiful bad decisions as part of the plot but he can at least make some mistakes. 

For me personally it's still better than Robin, where very little (and I'm only not willing to say nothing because I've not finished Awakening.) dialogue changes to reflect anyone dying, such as supports where he gets praised for keeping everyone alive. (such as Virion) 

(Also at least in my experience, having just finished ACT 3, for how good he is, Mages in general still kick way more ass than he does in-gameplay.)

[Describe your "perfect" Fire Emblem game.]

I guess a thing I'd like in an FE game is to ditch the support hearts.

Love hearts aren't something I tend to assosiate with "Person being burnt to a crisp by a mage."

[So what sort of unique class would you create for a Lord/Avatar?]

On 5/14/2020 at 11:30 AM, Ertrick36 said:

A lance/bow/tome (two of the three) cavalry unit that can dismount to wield swords and whose main appeal is a constant, passive rally effect that boosts stats of allies that are within 3 spaces of the unit, as well as some rally skills that can be activated.  They wouldn't have any real special powers such as being able to wield powerful weapons, but their ability to bolster the forces they command more than makes up for the lack of special power.  And perhaps you could fiddle around a bit with the rally ability so that it adds different bonuses, or maybe even adds penalties so that you can add greater bonuses than normal, sort of like a D&D point-buy system.

Whether the unit is actually a good combatant or not would depend on whether it's a game with level design that could easily be solo'd or not.  Also, this would also assume either that the game has a Bonus XP system like PoR or that the unit gets XP just from being near allies as they engage in combat.  And the bonus rally effect doesn't apply to the unit itself, and it's a skill that you can only have as this class, so changing class would remove it.

My idea is somewhat inspired by Mount and Blade, which I've been playing a lot recently.  In that game the most common method of play is the horse-mounted commander armed with a lance and bow/crossbow, and you can be an absolute useless sack of shit that just makes your soldiers do all the work for you.  But also I wanted to do something different that didn't just discourage a player from playing as the protagonist class - to make something to help the protagonist class actually stand out from the rest.

It seems like an interesting enough class.

And penaltiies for a bigger bonus is definetly something I can get behind.

[So what sort of unique class would you create for a Lord/Avatar?]

Basically  say your Ideas for unique classes that would be basically tied to the protagonist of an FE game.

Tactician 

The Tactician is a near non-fighter class, they can attack with swords but the character with this class has poor stats for combat. 

The Tactician's gimmick is being more of a supportive class, they give a small support bonus to any nearby units (increased with actual supports.) nearby.

The skills/abilites for the Tactician would be roughly the following (Names are kinda W.I.P):

• Second-hand learner: Anytime a nearby ally gets EXP, they get a bit of EXP equal to I guess roughly half of what that ally got. (or maybe a third? It'd require a good bit of balancing.), this is to compensate for how, ideally, the Character with this class would have very poor chances in battle, this is the only passive skill. (all the others are selected like the Arts from SOV.)
• Give out orders: Buffs all the units around them a little more in a support radius however they lose 20-30 percent dodge due to being distracted giving out orders.
• Battle Advice: Has 1 range but the Unit being buffed gets a decent increase to both Critical hit and dodging attacks but the actual Tactician takes a signifficantly heavy penalty to dodging enemy attacks themselves. 
• Push to the Limit:  Lets them basically act like a dancer though the unit being given an extra move this way is a bit tired out (so slightly lower chance to hit and such.) so it's still somewhat inferior to the actual dancer class. 

To keep the Tactician as a bit of a non-combatant, while I'm not sure of the exact stats, the Tactician Character would be more likely to gain speed and HP when leveling up but with a poor chance for skill and Strength, so they can't really deal that much damage.

As for Promotions, while I don't know what the names would be, depending on if the game has multiple promotions or not, the promoted form of the Tactician would either become Mounted (to move across the battlefield faster.) and/or gain the ability to use Staves to further aid their troops via healing and other stave abilites.

 

 

 

 

[What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?]

50 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

I actually agree with this. When the route split decision came for Fates, I actually had a far better idea of what I was choosing there than I did in Three Houses, where I didn't even know what Edelgard's motives were before choosing whether or not to join her. I don't consider 3H's story nearly as dumb as Fates' story, but the route split itself? No contest. 3H left me completely confused about what I was even fighting for for several chapters into part 2.

While I've not played Fates, I recall getting to the actual choice in Three Houses and my thoughts were pretty much exactly: "Wait what? now? I barely know anyone how the hell am I supposed to choose?"

It falls flat because unlike other games with faction choices. (Such as Fallout New Vegas) We basically know nothing about everyone, most of the students have a generic "You're that mercenary!" Dialogue so we know nothing about most of them and our only impressions of the actual leaders is literally the prologue. 

So I went Edelgard, I knew literally nothing about her aside from maybe she's clumsy (Since her axe just teleports away) but it's less than Untrustworthy Claude and Dimitri, who Byleth magically knows "has an inner darkness" via reading the game's script off-screen. (Which is lazy writing IMO.)

They really should have had a "Trial week" or two where Byleth teaches all the houses, so we could actually make this thing called an informed decision, it's like the devs had no idea how ot actually handle the choice so they just skip all the build-up/learning of characters that should exist beforehand,  more so when you consider how 2/3 Routes Byleth now has undying loyalty to this house leader he basically picked wtih a coin-flip.

 

[What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?]

23 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Also, as I pointed out in my marathon thread, this game feels like the first in the series up to that point that you could make an episodic animated series out of where every chapter could be the premise for a satisfying 20-minute episode.

People nowadays have so much grief to give FR7's story, as do I past Lyn Mode, but even then, this game was a major leap for the series in the art of storytelling. It was an impressive leap to see firsthand after binging all of the older ones over about half a year.

Honestly I'd take "The villians are a little stupid." (Such as how it's kinda clear even if Lundgren does kill Lyn that there's probably gonna be an uprising soon anyway since almost no one actually likes him or how Nergal/Ursula in Lyn mode underestimated our protagonists.)  over some of the stuff in other games:

It really bothers me when characters are suddenly fine in cutscenes after their health pool is gone. (Such as the Bandit boss in Three Houses's prologue who is not only not dead but can sprint at Edelgard and then to rub salt in the wound it turns out he's still alive after Byleth beats him down later on.), I can somewhat buy Erik and Fernard but a good few other instances in other games bother me. (Fernard since he's on a horse so it's possible he was targeted directly and the horse itself can still run off and Erik because well, he can barely even stand so while he's alive, he's also not exactly sprinting at Mach 3 to stab anyone anytime soon.)

Same with other gameplay-story inconsistencies, in that very same cutscene, Edelgard's axe (And if you're like me and had her defeat the boss two axes) just vanish and now she only has a small dagger that didn't exist in her inventory 5 seconds ago so Byleth can do his impression of a shield.

I can buy stupidity to a point but it will always take me out of a story when someone's weapons just convinently vanish or they survive should-be-fatal injuries because plot.

[What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?]

On 4/29/2020 at 12:30 PM, Alastor15243 said:

That whole "not a traditional war" thing is why I love Lyn Mode. They made a Fire Emblem story about an orphan on a road trip with a ragtag bunch of misfits to meet her last living family member. I want more stories like that, lower stakes, but more human and personal ones.

Honestly I wish someone would make a mod to make Lyn Mode an actually engaging Fire Emblem game rather than an (admittedly excellent) tutorial I've sadly outgrown.

I honestly kinda love it for how it's just essentially a relatively minor sequence of battles compared to regular fantasy plot-lines with a few hints there and then about the big picture.

Some of the other FE games kinda give you whiplash with how suddenly the stakes are raised and it's a big world ending event so I like how we deal with a rather (compared to the main plot of other FE games.) relatively mundane and minor sequence of battles.

[Would you be interested in having to care for Mounts in an FE Game?]

14 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Minigames and like elements, no. 

Horses with HP and minor stat buffs, perhaps as much as a skill, maybe a character-exclusive horse or two, is good to me. Treating horses purely as equipment isn't a bad idea as long as horse management is quick and easy to understand. Deciding what horses I want to buy and equip people with should take no more time to digest than the amount of time I spend on purchasing and distributing weapons.

3H Battalions might be case "more equipment to manage is bad" but I think thats owed entirely to the UI around Battalions.

I suppose ideally this would function more like Jagged Alliance's training mechanic. (Dunno how exactly it's done in 3 Houses as I only got to just after the mock battle, which for some reason you don't actually train for but if it's like anything I've seen with the monestary it probably involves too much running around.)

You have a unit and mount sit out a battle and train together and they both improve somehow in exchange for not taking part in the battle  in a similar manner to just selecting a unit because you want take an item they picked up in the last battle out of their inventory in the GBA games before actually starting the battle.

Not sure how exactly racing would function but It'd be basically like the Arena but maybe with a lower pay-out in exchange for no threat of death. (So you just sit back and watch the animation of them racing or skip it.)

So it's just a quick function you'd do in the same menu as you're sorting your weapons before battle, maybe you can optionally watch them train together but therotically it'd be just going to a unit you're not using, selecting "Train" then the mount. (Rather than running around a large location.)

(Maybe a few story moments where there's a long down-time between combat you'll get to assign mutliple training events in the time before the fighting picks up again.)

 

[Would you be interested in having to care for Mounts in an FE Game?]

20 minutes ago, Pengaius said:

Perhaps, if it's completely optional and offers no strategic benefit when done or any loss if ignored. Maybe something like ride a mount around in a pen for 2 minutes just for the heck of it, or have x character ride the horse around and get a small dialogue option with potentially humorous results. Or again, if in a base camp location, have the game randomly designate one unit to be riding a horse around parts of the camp, instead of just standing in the same place for a month. 

So, pointless diversion is fine. But LTC PRO STRATS FAST SUPPORT FOR OPTIMAL PAIR UP GAINS FASTER FAST FAST, I BOUGHT THIS GAME TO PLAY AS LITTLE OF IT AS POSSIBLE is not. 

I would like to have some benefits but I guess minor stuff like "Some mounts can move 1-2 squares more than others or do 1-4 extra points of damage."

Though it'd be a pain to balance I guess, to have it worth doing but also not absolutely vital.

Definitely wouldn't want it to be so large you do more of it than actual fighting.

[Would you be interested in having to care for Mounts in an FE Game?]

20 minutes ago, Zanarkin said:

please, can we please stop making fire emblem games into sim games? I just want to have my turnbased strategy game back. Having mini games and stuff is fine and all, but if you are going to have it make it completely optional, no super op items that can only be obtained through them either. Three houses is a pain in the ass to play through again. Although stuff is skip able, it will severely weaken you to skip shit.

I mean yeah it'd need to not be too intrusive.

I've not played much of Three Houses at the moment but I'm not really a fan of running around the monestarry.

Ideally you'd still play most of the game like a traditional FE game, just access all this stuff from a menu or something in-between levels. (I guess like how changing everyone's inventories is accessed through a quick simple menu in-between battles in Echoes.)

I like the idea of this but I get your point about maybe the devs making it so  it'd be too much of a hassle to actually be fun doing, if they make it too in-depth to the point where it takes a ton of running around/going through menus/animations to do.

 

[Would you be interested in having to care for Mounts in an FE Game?]

12 minutes ago, eclipse said:

No I'm not interested in certain Berwick Saga mechanics in FE.  This is one of them.

Wasn't aware it was in Berwick Saga, how does it work there?

[Would you be interested in having to care for Mounts in an FE Game?]

Assuming the next FE game did have some sort of base-system, would you be interested if you actually had to care for your mounts? as well as having to buy more of them.

You could name them and they'd have their own stats, this also means that if someone promotes to a mounted unit, you actually have to get them a mount rather than them suddenly having one.

So maybe a particular Pegasus, Wyvern, or Horse would be "Fast", so they can move a few extra spaces between turns, maybe another is "Vicious" so it does more damage but has a chance of beserking and forcing it's rider to charge the enemy when attacked.

Additionally, possibly animal racing would be a non-violent alternative to Arenas using your mounts to race other Pegasus, Wyverns, Horses or War-elephants for gold.

Additionally, it'd be possible for the mount or the rider to die without the other dying too. (So you could lose a rider then you'd have a beserked pegasus attacking the enemy that you can't control or you'd lose a mount and have an injured rider.) because Perma-death wants your tears when your favourite animal dies infront of you.

[The Fire Emblem 3 Houses General Questions Thread]

So is there any actual secrets in the Monestary? (such as hidden chests with good items in them.)

 

[Favorite FE Game?]

I sorta flip/flop between two out of the four I've played. (Blazing Blade, Awakening, Echoes and Three houses.)
 

Blazing Blade seems to be (As someone who's only played 4 so this is a very uninfomred opinion admittingly.) a solid entry and it's tutorial and low (But not braindead) difficulty makes it a decent entry point it seems and it's characters are great, it doesn't seem to push alot of boundrys (Aside from arguably having Mark, our first Avatar, who is also my favourite.) but it does what it does well in my experience and I also love rescue and Mines/Light Runes. (I kinda want those to return as mines in FE are a ton more effective in comparison to most games by virtue of most combat being melee.)

Echoes:Shadows of Valentia does alot of things differently but I generally enjoy what it does differently, I'm a good way through the game and my only real peeve is the AI moving first and you not getting to choose where you units spawn if they attack you on the world map, which can result in unfair deaths on smaller maps.

I like the dungeon crawling and the various hidden walls and such in certain dungeons gives me a good bit joy as I love hidden walls and hidden collectables. (Kinda dissapointed that Three Houses Monestary seems to completely lack these.) 

It also has death reactions as the standard, which it kinda should be considering how perma-death is kinda one of the mainstrays of the series.

While it's a little bit broken (Invoke is arguably OP.) I at least find the "I have a fun gimmick spell that's broken in the right hands" thing alot more fun than just "I can pair units up and watch the enemy commit suicide over and over"  pair-up system.

 

Basically Blazing Blade is my favourite I guess "Standard" FE title while Echoes is my favourite that's trying to experiment with differenet stuff.

[The first FE character you have taken a liking to]

Frederick since he's actually against taking in Robin. (Even as a complete newbie, it felt really off to me.), Granted, I lost it since he comes around.

The first one that I didn't stop liking soon after was Dorcas since it's an actually somewhat sympathteic depiction of why someone would turn to bandit stuff. (even if most of the generic bandits do not get anything like this.) So he's the first FE7 character that truely intrigued me, granted it doesn't get brought up much outside of supports. (that I didn't get on my playthrough.) 

[Branching support system]

It could be neat.

If the avatar supports became less about (From what I've seen.) worshipping the avatar, maybe have a few "Trap" situations, where a character is going though something, you can say stuff that appeals to them but is actually terrible advice and it can backfire somehow.

While giving them actually good advice that they'll hate hearing, while it doesn't give you support points right away, turns out to benefit that person and their support later.

 

[Who is you least liked or most hated FE characters]

Chrom.

He's an absolute moron to the point where I'm amazed this man know hows to breath.

He's surprised by the thought of an army fighting together in an early tutorial despite literally leading a military group and he basically acts like an idiot to the point of absurdity. (Such as recruiting the highly suspicious Robin after not even a day of knowing them.)

 

[Describe your "perfect" Fire Emblem game.]

Only played about 4 games. (And not a bunch of two of them but I'll give this a shot.)

Mines and Light Runes return, since mines can be disarmed by thieves, maybe have level design where disarming mines with Thieves lets you bypass groups of dangerous enemies in a "Secure Throne" map for instance while if you have no thief you're gonna have to try to fight your way through.

No exploration or if it exists, make it like Echoes, I'm not a fan of the Monestary. (Takes more time to load than Deadly Premonition, which has an actual open world with driving on the switch, Can't talk to most generics and items are represented by blue particle effects rather than actually being visible.)

No Self-insert Avatar character or at least make them a relatively minor character in the story like Mark who isn't an OP gameplay unit.

Spells either use books or HP, maybe a mix of both? (So really powerful spells take health in addition to being limited.)

Spells like Invoke, I know they're kinda hard to balance but if a game is going to be broken, at least be fun in the "I can summon illusion Pegasus riders" way rather than "I have a unit who can basically solo the game." 

Small support count I guess? Like FE7 but without the support limit per character, I'd rather have well-written supports where a character that can talk with 3-4 others rather than trying to do everyone but then having to sacrifice dialogue quality. 

No Child units, it only makes supports worse because sorry, I do not buy that almost anyone would be willing to marry almost anyone else.

No marrying Dragons that look underaged. (Or regular humans in the case of characters like Ricken.)

No Gender-locked classes.

Rescue returning.

Death Reactions like Echoes and re-writting some plot events if a character dies. (like how Matthew dying early on in FE7 effects a cutscene later.)

If the avatar character needs praised, have a system where it's done via actual player performance. (A bit like the battle history mechanic of FE7 after you clear the game.)

Don't have characters shine as if made of Plastic or have black lines on their nose to emphasis their noses. (Only Three houses did this but I think it looks really awful.)

No silly cutscene stuff that look extremely out of place. (Characters jumping leg-shattering distances into the air while fighting, or stuff like Edelgard's axe vanishing in the prologue of Three Houses.)

 

 

[How do you think avatars should be handled?]

I'm personally not a fan of most of the avatar's in my experience.

With Robin and Byleth, they don't really feel like Avatars, they're set in stone in who they are and you don't really get that many meaningful choices, they feel more like a set-in-stone character who's kinda bland.

While Mark was kinda nothing, he was a nothing you could make up a backstory and somewhat of a personality for, I honestly prefer it.

I'd rather them have an new avatar be more like Mark, a kinda void that you're allowed to make up the specifics of yourself, maybe even have any dialogue choices (if they exist.) more be like "You say they look pretty" or so and so so you're allowed to imagine what exactly was said.

Also don't turn out to be anyone special, please, I really don't like it and it feels alot like a game trying to inflate your ego.

Also mostly get rid of praise in supports and such or if they exist, make it so it's actually determined if I'm actually doing well, If I can get praise for keeping people alive. (Such as Virion's supports in Awakening if I remember.) when theoretically I could have gotten alot of people dead, it just feels like again, trying to artifically inflate the player's ego. 

Mechanically, either they don't appear on the battlefield like Mark or they could be somewhat similar to an FE7 Dancer in that they buff uinits rather than fighting Directly, maybe like how Echoes has certain characters always support others if they have to fight, then they should be a rather poor fighter stat-wise so it's really more of a self-defense thing. (Maybe they'd get some EXP whenever another unit they're buffing kills an enemy.)