AnonymousSpeed

Baby hours. My answer is Mega Man, for which I already do this. The Fire Emblem is full of bad opinions but it's already self-devouring. Let me know if you remember it, as a matter of historical curiosity.

"mfers" is short for (pardon my French) "motherfuckers", referring to people in general. Glenn is using a common meme format which mocks a position by saying "people are still doing this in present year", in a sort of "can you believe people still do this?" kind of way. That said, the real question is not whether it's optional, but how it affects the experience. The Somniel doesn't really benefit the experience but it's easy to ignore and the "costs" (lack of gains) for doing so aren't experience-ruining. I would not say the game would be better without it, but it would probably have been better if they came up with something else. Re: Mechanics. Engage has new mechanics, the rings especially. Some are good, some are bad, but it has as much as "new" stuff as the last few Fire Emblem games had. Re: Plot. Yadda yadda yadda "plot in games bad, we get it Uncle Anon, please stop drinking eggnog", but more seriously. Three Houses is a game. If there was nothing in those risks to improve ludo-narrative integration compared to previous titles, there was nothing to gain in taking them. I think it actually made that integration worse by moving even further away from perma-death, the way relics are handled, etc. This is true regardless of whether the plot is actually good or new or not. There is actually some interesting game design here (the DLC kind of ruins it, go figure). You have one set of rings and they get taken away, so you have to build up another set with radically different abilities. The game shakes up your strategic options and forces you to adapt. Doing so is not optional, unless you buy the DLC pass. So have you picked up the game? I'm not saying you should. I haven't played Engage since March and I really don't miss it. However, I do think "it looks boring and safe and cringe" is a bad reason to avoid it though, since Fire Emblem has been all those things since Gaiden. Behold, I am achieving the final form of Fire Emblem fan. Nobody hates Fire Emblem more than Fire Emblem fans, and I will soon achieve the level of no longer liking Fire Emblem at all.

"If you went on a field trip to Walmart-" This joke is worthy. You might even say Fox-worthy. Mostly been humming ELO and Nik Kershaw recently. EDIT: Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Darn, and I even remembered Rose's game right. I am feeling quite silly after that! To be fair, that was two out of like eight dudes. While we have had a Joshua, we have not had a Moses or Caleb either.

Saul and Solomon may sound similar but are not technically related. I was amused to find Paul was a bandit boss in the same game as Saul was a playable unit.

We haven't had a Jonathan either, although I think those are more distinct etymologically than I would initially assume. There's no David either. Or Nathaniel (or its variants). Miriam is another variant of Mary which hasn't been included and was common in 1st Century Israel. Continuing a theme, the following are names of Apostles not included in Fire Emblem: John Andrew Simon Peter Thaddeus Bartholomew Judas James (previously mentioned) The following are names of Minor Prophetic books not included in Fire Emblem: Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Malachi Apparently the only name of a minor prophet used has been Zachariah, used as a pseudonym of Bruno (in the form Zacharias) in Fire Emblem Heroes. No Daniel either. No Eli, Elias, Elijah, or Elisha. Stepping away from Biblical figures, the name I actually wanted to say was Darius. Apparently that was used in Warriors (or at least a similar variant was), so I will have to go with Cyrus instead.

In the defense of MadBoar, that the things observed still have to be designated and termed in a way similar to his opening post.

Keep in mind that "archetype", in the context of Fire Emblem, specifically refers to units and includes both narrative and gameplay elements. The proposed Julia archetype is the one suited to how the term is actually used. What you call a "Sonia" already exists as a general trope in fiction and for thousands of years. Place locations may share thematic similarities or even derivative designs, but that doesn't make them archetypes. Archetypes are not plot points or tropes.

You might have better luck asking this in the Fates board: https://forums.serenesforest.net/index.php?/forum/84-fire-emblem-fates/ I generally prefer flat damage or damage reduction modifiers or other stat boosts to chance-based skills, but it also depends on how you specifically want to use this Corrin. Is the idea to delete one enemy on enemy phase? Trample is usually good if you want to kill something, but it's very high-investment and you'd usually be better in Wyvern than Paladin.

There are several popular movies* which are, in essence, a very long extended fight scene. *- in Hong Kong Yes. Give it to me. I still won't watch it, but I want it to exist.

If you'd said Berwick, people would have gladly volunteered and you could've started your own FE-villain cult. Neato. What are your languages? Never mind, that checks out.

FE10 did this, though I think it might have just been for one map early in Part 2 where all ally and enemy units were fliers. I don't think it used any special animations either, it just had the units fight in a skybox instead of having any ground. I've generally preferred to play with animations off, so I don't have a huge investment in how the in-battle animations look. I think some tactical maneuvering like the OP described could be neat, but something that dynamic might be a lot of trouble to implement, and the tactics of Fire Emblem are mostly on the map rather than the per-combat level.

I can possibly do this. Can we request certain chapters?

Y'know, maybe only having avatar supports was an alright idea after all.

That was a pretty cool video. I appreciated the comparisons between versions, and some of the measured comparisons/assessments of other Let's Plays/resources.

If I had a nickle for the number of times I had to hear some nonsense about sol exactly like this, I'd have enough for a nice dinner and a show. To be fair, the newbies need to see the order of things around here. We can't all be experts in the Serenes Forest lore.

Dang, you mean Gabriel Knight, the adventure game? I kinda wish they'd just make adventure games again. Or FMV games. I personally wasn't that interested in Gunvolt, so while I think Mega Man 10 was alright and the Zero games have a reputation of their own, I'm not really sure that's what I'd like to see. That's also a track record of basically just making more Mega Man games, and while I like Mega Man games I would prefer something that shakes it up a little more for each release. I think Mega Man 11's attempt to do so was a little flat and would like to see some better-integrated improvements.

I hope the Dale character has a cool orange hat and sunglasses.

I am actually working on something, but it's more inspired by the September prompt than this one.

If you'd asked this six or seven years ago, I wouldn't said "take Mega Man from Capcom and give it to someone who will actually make a new game." However, Mega Man 11 has come out since then and I was kind of underwhelmed, so screw it. Give Mega Man to Nintendo so we can get a good new game.

I have not felt this problem.

I personally do see how this satisfies the actual market sense of competition, since someone buying those games is probably already buying the games they're based on (to the extent they are currently being sold) and competition implies some degree of choosing one thing over another. I don't know, man. But they didn't make Zelda into a franchise by copying Adventure. They made a game to replicate the feeling exploring games- and they copying themselves and making worse games for it.

Why don't you hold these nuts in your mouth? That was inappropriate, I apologize.

He's finally back To kick some tail!

Dithorba is also in Heroes with (if I remember right) basically the same design, so she'll probably keep that. I honestly have no idea though, I'm not sure there's been a chance for a character to be introduced to the west by Heroes first and then a remake of their game, so they may decide they don't want to hold themselves to those designs. The Heroes designs have been pretty loyal to the FE4 ones from what I can tell though, so we might not see any race-swapped characters and Isaach probably won't be given any Arab flair. Echoes gives us a weird precedent here where some palette swaps stayed palette swaps (namely Barth and Garth), so it's not out of the question that the same happens for some of these characters. I'm assuming the triplet bosses with have generally similar designs, though it'd be cool if the portraits at least had them in different poses.