BrightBow

Just to clarify a few things: The opening of FE6 says that the humans started the war. The opening of FE7 started that the humans started the war. That's hardly nothing. And after the war, there were no longer dragons in the known world. What else is needed to call it a genocide? And Generations of humans did fight, yes. But we have no idea what they thought about the war because it's never addressed in either game. We also don't know what the Divine Generals thought about the whole thing. What we do know, is that they lead a war that was ended by killing the entire opposition. And yes, that's including non-combatants. And there are actually a lot of things suggest that humans wanted to see every last human dead. The biggest point is this on: There are no dragons in the known world anymore. No dragon managed to survive outside of Arcadia. Except for Jahn and Idoun, who were lying under the rubble of the temple. If they didn't want them all death, then why didn't any dragons manage to live open among humans? Why was there no one left to live in their own nation? And remember Nergal's wife? Aenir? The dragon? She was killed even though she was merely going with her family through the Dragon Gate. She was a non-combatant. But that didn't save her. Look, it is possible that she was an exception. A tragic victim of a war that lost it's meaning long ago. It's possible that the Divine Generals were kind people that were forced to take sides into a war whose stakes grew to high to end with both sides surviving. But when you are saying that they definitely were Heroes, then you aren't doing anything different then I do when I say that they are all genocidal bastards: You are simply filling the blanks. I can't prove that the Divine Generals were evil bastards and stuff. Because I don't know what's in those blanks. But neither can you. The answer is not the point. The point is that the answer does not exist. Because it's a question that needs an answer. Because of the things that we do know. Both games open by telling us that humans started a war that drove dragons from the known world. Starting a war is a very bad thing. Wiping an entire race from the map is so as well. Sure, there can be reasons for why those things happened. Good reasons. But if reasons exist, they need to be brought up. How can we look up to these people like the story excepts us to, when all we know is that they contributed to Genocide? But we aren't told any reasons. It's just repeated over and over that they were good, brave, noble and stuff. But these are just adjectives. Adjectives applied from a generation that knows them for only one thing: Defeating the dragons. Adjectives applied from a generation that is a millennium away from the truth. We are forced to judge the Generals with no information whatsoever because the game never talks about it. -Even when the villain is a man who lost his wife through that war. -Even when two main characters are two dragon kids who lost their parents. -Even when we are supposed to shed tears for one of them. So in the end we have two stories, that idealizes people either despite their contribution to the extermination of an intelligent humanoid species... ...or specifically because they exterminated an intelligent humanoid species. And the only reason we have to assume the latter, is blind faith that the writers couldn't have possibly meant it the other way.

So there is no way to avoid any chance of the game crashing when using it? Yeah, I can see how that wasn't noticed during playtesting. Man, NoE always used to catch stuff like that.

Since I think that I only got a few of the newer puzzles by Spotpass, I figured that only a part of the users get one part of the puzzle and the rest has to use StreetPass. Wait, how you can you steal a Bullion in the demo in order to test the glitch?

That part is hardly satisfying, considering that the script takes it for granted that the Arcadians accepted them with open arms. It's just another case of the game refusing to address Athos role during the Scouring. Also, the Arcadians are not Ninian and Nils. Two major characters who we know suffered a heavy loose through the war.

That got a bit messy with the edits now. That's pretty much the same like the text in your last post that you added later and which I responded in my edited post. So could you please refer to the part that I added above as a response to that new part. Edit: Ah, whatever. I just transfer it down here. True, it makes sense from an in-universe perspective. Which means that we have two games who continuously worship a group of people who are known for driving a sentient and intelligent species from the known world. Whose heroes of both games are treated as their successor in spirit. And one of them was still alive during the second game. And he is never asked any unpleasant question. Not from the two kids whose mother got killed during the war and which separated them forever from their parents. And not from the guy who lost his wife in the war. And who was forever separated from his children as the result of an desperate attempt to save her. And who spent centuries desperately futile trying to revive her and lost his mind, memories and his whole being in the process. Which also turns him conveniently into a cartoonish bond villain, who antagonizes Athos for entirely unrelated reasons. Instead that surviving "hero" gets a touching ending, in which he declares: "I have no regrets". That's either some really shitty writing or morally abhorrent.

"...Ninian, Nils, the blame for this was never yours alone. While we can claim ignorance, we still bear some responsibility." He said the dragons were not alone at fault. Meaning he says that humans only have partial responsibility for it. And taking "some" responsibility is very little. So he blames the majority of the mess on the dragons. Edit: Yeah. The dragons were fighting back. Those bastards.

How in the world were the dragons to blame for a war that humans started? The people who "disrupted a peace forged in wisdom" to start a war share only some responsibility? There is nothing to suggest that besides the irritating refusal of those games to call the Divine Generals out on it.

When he said that the dragons weren't alone responsible? And that humans shared "some" responsibility? It's not on the game script on this site, so here it is again: "We humans, we took control of the continent like it was our right. We never considered who or what we drove away... ...Ninian, Nils, the blame for this was never yours alone. While we can claim ignorance, we still bear some responsibility

Let me try to recall them. Zelda 1 - obviously A Link to the Past - The relationship between Ganon and Agrahim is never made explicit but either way he is the guy in charge Ocarina of Time - Obviously. Oracle games - Kidnapped by Ganon's subordinates. Though admittedly, Ganon himself is death during the whole game. Wind Waker - Man, that one was just embarrassing. The moment she wears the dress, she gets set up to be kidnapped in the most obvious and contrived way possible. Four Swords Adventures - Kidnapped by Dark Link. But it turns out Ganon is in charge again. Twilight Princess - Kidnapped by Zant. Well, sort of. But it turns out the guy in charge is actually... She also got kidnapped by Vati in Four Swords and Minish Cap. She spent half of Phantom Hourglass being kidnapped. The other half, she was a statue. And every time you load your game, she begs you to save her. And she got kidnapped again Skyward Sword. No idea if Ganon is involved again. If Zelda appears in person, she gets kidnapped. Spirit Tracks is an exception since she only looses her body and is otherwise an active character. Less active was her Zelda 2 incarnation. She slept through the whole game. Considering how Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker went, her pink dress itself might be cursed in some way.

Lances all the way. Great damage, high accuracy, low weight. They can be thrown and kill horsies. It unites power and style for a fair price. A weapon for the Knight who wants to be prepared for anything.

You can care about what you want. I do care about the DLC. (Well, technically "did care" since I am not getting Awakening, but that's besides he point.) The more DLC would pander to me personally, the happier I would be obviously. But just because it doesn't do that, it doesn't "decrease the value of the game". Which was your initial statement. Just to recall that back into memory. If you mean, when I might want to get rid of DLC they did? Or when I would certain DLC not to exist period? It's what you quoted from me: Criminal law- and moral relevance and stuff.

Yes, there could be theoretically content that is relevant from the perspective of the criminal law or a mere moral perspective. But comparing stuff like this to a badly designed gameplay additions is absurd. That doesn't show anything other that my statement wasn't 100% perfectly literal.

Personally, since I have no problem with porn, I probably wouldn't care. I did react allergic to the swimmsuit DLC and stuff. But only because I think that they drove stuff like that way to far in the actual game and the release of stuff that indicates that if anything changes, they will be even worse about it. That kinda hit a sore spot. Of course, thanks to the slow localization, I had plenty of time to get over that. Saying that it decreases the value of a game just kinda sounds to me like a game becomes worse because somebody out there made a bad mod or hack for that game. As long as it looks like that they effectively make you buy the full game that way, I say anything goes. Gamebreaking or not.

It just for those who strive for ultimate power. I am really disappointed that there is nothing like a competitive or co-op multiplayer. Something like the DS multiplayer would work really well in a game where you don't have to money grind in an arena for countless hours, hoping that no one dies... But since it just so happens that this doesn't exist here, I don't see a problem. The game is effectively over and DLC is so separated from the main game that they can go nuts for all I care.

Ah, I'm sorry. I thought you had a problem with the possibility of a better balanced Fire Emblem because you acted so offended by a thread talking about balance. I accidentally argued against a Strawman here. Sorry, again. But why do you got so riled up about this thread? Why shouldn't people talk about these aspects?

I don't know. I do think that IS is trying to create an actual strategy game and not a strategy engine. That's why they bother to include a difficulty setting and apply stats to everything instead of simply allowing the player to choose how much money to pay for something or how much damage they want to deal.

Nothing is wrong with that. There are opportunities for infinite exp and money. They raised the max stat cap to infinite just so that people can grind units to the point where nothing in the game can scratch them. They get what they want. But what about the people who expect an actual strategic experience from a self-declared strategy game? What's wrong with giving them the capability?

So what? Just because it's difficult to design a game properly, they shouldn't even try? Now obviously this doesn't apply to paid DLC. It applies more to stuff like making the most powerful unit not only being available from the very beginning but also give him a variation of the Paragon skill. Or to give a sturdy variation of a mage exclusive access to an health restoring attack spell that can be bought cheaply and infinitely... But seriously, this mindset is terrible. It's like in order to have fun with the game, you already have to spend like 100 hours on it just to know how to play the game without breaking into tiny pieces.

Nintendo's Spanish section didn't distribute Kingdom Hearts 3D... but they take the initiative for some random preorder bonus. Edit: Oh sorry, I guess I read that wrong. It's Nintendo Germany that takes independent action, not the ones who actually distribute it. At least, I guess that's what it's supposed to mean. So, sorry for the inconvenience.

The Spotpass characters are free? Aren't they already in the code? Like, will it display the portraits on your game when you use Streetpass teams to fight a Spotpass character that you haven't downloaded yourself? Edit: It's a big difference to me. Requiring an online connection to access free parts in the game is a pet peeve of mine since Internet still can't be taken for granted. And it's a pointless inconvenience either way. If it's not paid DLC, you technically already paid for it. You shouldn't have to jump through pointless hoops like that. And because it will be looked away forever, when they take their servers down.

It's called Akaneia. Edit: How are you even supposed to spell Dolhr?

But NoE is based in Germany. That was the whole reason for the time based restrictions nonsense in the E-Shop. So if their head isn't responsible for the bonus, couldn't this mean that only the UK will get it because they were the ones to announce it?

Well, I am nostalgic for these characters. That's the very reason that I don't want them to be treated so halfheartedly. How can people be satisfied by a mere name sign and recycled artwork?

Well, he at least probably does have a fanclub. Of course, given the limitations of the engine and the clash between the different artworks, I was never a fan of them to begin with. Putting old artwork on random stats and skill combinations looks simply unprofessional. Heck, I play Baldur's Gate with old Fire Emblem portraits. Didn't occur to me that they are the real deal just because of that. If they don't resemble the original characters and don't look consistent with the actual cast, then I don't see the need to bother.

I did believe to know. That's why I am confused that they would choose a character who so obviously won't match his in-game model when there are plenty of alternatives, given that most of the cast is young and bare of facial hair. And it's not like Moulder the Boulder has such a big fanclub. And those who do, would like to see his majestic mustache. And I didn't know that the English language doesn't use the word "beard" to describe any sort of facial hair.